dyA^ 


^7/i 


0 


"Close  COMMUNION:" 


OR,   BAPTISM  AS  A  PREREQUISITE   TO 
THE   LORD'S  SUPPER 


JOHN  T.  CHRISTIAN,  A.M.,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 
Author  of  ^'  Immersion,  the  Act  of  Christian  Baptism.,^''  etc. 


SEVENTEENTH     THOUSAND. 


LITTLE    ROCK,    ARK. 

THE  ADVANCE  PUBLISHING  CO. 

1907. 


COPTRIGHT.  1892, 

By  J.  T.  CHRISTIAN. 


Electrotyped 

BY  ROBERT  ROWELL, 

LOUISVILLE.  KY. 


SRLF 
URL 


o//?5rj^5/ 


PREFACE. 

THE  position  of  the  Baptists  upon  the  Com- 
munion question  is  one  of  neutrality.  We 
do  not  invite  others  to  participate  with  us;  and 
not  inviting  others  we  do  not  accept  invitations. 
Our  position  is  defensive  rather  than  offensive. 
This  book  is  written  in  this  spirit.  It  is  intended 
to  explain  and  defend  the  practice  commonly- 
known  as  "Close  Communion." 

We  think  our  practice  is  Scri^Dtural.  The 
brotherhood  of  the  New  Testament  were  one  in 
fellowship  and  doctrines.  Under  those  condi- 
tions open  communion  was  impossible.  This 
view  is  confirmed  by  all  history.  I  have  been 
unable  to  find  an  instance  of  open  communion  for 
the  first  sixteen  hundred  years  after  Christ. 

I  am  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  opinions  of 
the  authors  I  quote,  only  so  far  as  I  may  endorse 
them.  Many  of  these  writers  believe  in  baptis- 
mal salvation,  in  baptism  coming  in  the  room  of 
circumcision,  and  other  errors  which  we  repudi- 
ate. I  have,  how^ever,  accurately  examined  orig- 
inal sources,  so  that  there  may  be  no  doubt  as  to 
the  testimony  of  these  writers. 

The  author  desires  that  this  book  may  be  read 
in  the  kind  spirit  in  which  it  was  written.  There 
are  many  hard  facts  in  the  book,  but  no  hard 
words.  I  merely  recorded  facts  as  I  found  them 
without  passion  or  prejudice. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/closecdm'munionorOOchri 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  I. 
Are  Ignorance,  Prejudice,  and  Bigotry  the  Reasons 
Why  Baptists  are  Close  Communionists? 7 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Baptist  Position  Stated  and  Defended   by  the 

Scriptures 21 

CHAPTER  HI. 
The  Testimony  of  the  Fathers 39 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Testimony  of  Scholars 50 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Testimony  of  Creeds,  Confessions,  etc 61 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Terms  of  Communion  in  the  Episcopal  Church. 

Are  the  Episcopalians  Close  Communionists? 64 

CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Terms  of  Communion  in  the  Presbyterian  Chvirch. 
Are  the  Presbyterians  Close  Communionists? 81 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The   Terms  of    Communion  in  the  Congregational 
Church.     Are  the  Congregationalists  Close  Com- 
munionists?   109 

CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Terms  of  Communion  in  the  Methodist  Church. 
Are  the  Methodists  Close  Communionists?     The 
Wesleys  and  Dr.  Coke 118 


6  CONTENTS. 

PAOB 

CHAPTER  X. 
The  Terms  of  Communion  in  the  Methodist  Church. 
Are  the  Methodists  Close  Communionists?  Asbury 
and  Hedding-.     The  Discipline.     Living  Bishops. 
Watson  and  Others 138 

CHAPTER  XI. 
The  Terms  of  Communion  of  the  Disciples  or  Chris- 
tian Church.     Are  the  Disciples  Close  Commun- 
ionists?   156 

CHAPTER  Xn. 
What  Is  Baptism? 163 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Are  Baptists  Lacking  in  Charity? 190 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Positive  and  Moral  Law 197 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Open  Communion  Destroys  Gospel  Discipline 202 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Infant  Commiuiion 212 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
Open  Communionists  Do  Not  Endorse  Each  Otlier. . .  .220 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
Open  Communion  is  a  Worn  Out  Heresy  Borrowed 

From  the  Baptists 234 


(( 


CLOSE  COMMUNION;" 

OR,  BAPTISM   AS  A  PREREQUISITE   TO  THE 


LORD'S  SUPPER. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ARE  IGNORANCE,  PREJUDICE,  AND  BIGOTRY  THE 

REASONS  WHY  BAPTISTS  ARE  CLOSE  COM- 

MUNIONISTS? 

THE  Baptists  have  been  thoroughly  misun- 
derstood on  the  subject  of  Close  Commun- 
ion; and  it  has  been  difficult  to  get  our  real 
opinions  before  the  world.  That  we  are  more 
illiberal,  un-Christian,  and  sectarian  than  others 
I  do  not  believe.  Perhaps  it  is  frequently  more 
convenient  and  i)opular  to  use  denunciatory 
words  than  to  meet  our  arguments.  Oui*  position 
has  been  distorted,  and  some  of  those  professing 
the  broadest  liberality  have  sometimes  called  us 
the  harshest  names.  I  shall  notice  a  few  of  these 
ej)ithets  not  for  the  purpose  of  stirring  up  ill 
feeling  and  strife,  for  of  that  there  has  been  too 
much  already,  but  rather  that  we  may  have  the 
subject  fairly  before  our  minds.  I  believe  that 
we  can  easily  show  that  these  names  have  no 
more  application  to  us  than  to  others. 


8  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

We  have  been  called  ' '  bigoted. "  Webster  says 
that  in  its  origin  the  word  bigot  means  ' '  hypo- 
crite," and  defines  it:  "One  obstinately  and  un- 
reasonably wedded  to  a  particular  religious 
creed,  opinion,  practice  or  ritual."  Hypocrites 
we  are  not.  It  is  proverbial  that  the  Baptists 
are  among  the  boldest  and  most  progressive 
people  on  earth;  and  that  they  have  been  swift, 
in  all  proper  ways,  to  promulgate  their  opinions. 
To  the  charge  of  being  obstinately  and  unreason- 
ably wedded  to  an  opinion  we  plead  not  guilty. 
And  as  to  creed  or  ritual  it  is  not  so  much  as 
mentioned  among  us.  The  fact  that  our  doc- 
trines and  practices  do  not  agree  with  what 
others  believe  on  those  subjects,  does  not,  in  the 
least,  go  to  prove  that  we  are  not  grounded  upon 
the  truth.  Our  highest  appeal  is  not  to  the  bar 
of  public  opinion,  but  to  the  Word  of  God.  We 
stand  by  the  Bible.  When  God  commands  a 
thing,  we  believe  men  ought  to  obey.  When 
men  object  to  this  position  we  make  answer: 
"Whether  it  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God  to 
hearken  unto  you  more  than  unto  God,  judge 
ye."  (Acts  4:19.)  If  this  is  not  popular  with  so- 
called  liberal  opinions,  as  it  is  not,  we  can  only 
say:  ""We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  men." 
(Acts  5:29.)  We  must  have  a  "thus  saith  the 
Lord."  We  should  not  be  criticised  because  we 
refuse  to  obey  the  commandments  of  men. 

Many  v/holly   mistake    latitudinarianism   for 


IGNORANCE  AND  PREJUDICE.  9 

Catholicism.  I  do  not  think  John  Wesley  ever 
said  a  truer  thing  than  what  he  says  on  this 
point.  Said  he:  "A  catholic  spirit  is  not  specu- 
lative latitudinarianism.  It  is  not  an  indifference 
to  all  opinions.  This  is  the  spawn  of  hell;  not 
the  offspring  of  heaven.  This  unsettledness  of 
thought,  this  being  driven  to  and  fro,  and  tossed 
about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine,  is  a  great  curse, 
not  a  blessing;  an  irreconcilable  enemy,  not  a 
true  Catholicism.  A  man  of  a  true  catholic  spirit 
does  not  halt  between  two  opinions;  nor  vainly 
endeavor  to  blend  them  into  one.  Observe  this, 
you  that  know  not  what  spirit  you  are  of;  who 
call  3^ourself  a  catholic  spirit,  only  because  you 
are  of  a  muddy  understanding;  because  your 
mind  is  all  in  a  mist;  because  you  are  of  no  set- 
tled, consistent  principles,  but  are  for  jumbling 
all  opinions  together.  Be  convinced  that  you  have 
quite  missed  your  way.  You  know  not  where 
you  are.  You  think  you  have  got  into  the  very 
Spirit  of  Christ;  when  in  truth  you  are  nearer 
the  spirit  of  Anti-Christ."  (Rowland  Hill's  Full 
Answer  to  J.  Wesley's  Remarks,  pp.  40,41.) 

It  ought  to  be  poi)ular  for  a  man  to  have  con- 
victions and  stand  by  them.  For  my  part  I  like 
a  man  who  believes  something  and  knows  why 
he  believes  it;  and  when  occasion  calls  for  it  is 
not  afraid  to  defend  his  position.  "The  appoint- 
ment of  God,"  says  Turretin,  "is  the  highest 
law,  the   supreme   necessity;    which  Ave   ought 


10  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

rather  to  obey  than  indulge  j^opular  ignorance 
and  weakness. "  (Inst.  Theol. ,  Tom.  iii,  Loc.  xix, 
Quaes,  xiv,  sec.  14,  p.  336.)  This  is  the  height 
and  front  of  our  offending.  We  recognize  no  man 
as  Lord  of  the  conscience.  I,  therefore,  appeal 
from  the  position  that  wc  are  hypocrites  and 
obstinate. 

CHRISTIAN    UNION. 

The  Baptists  of  the  United  States  stand  pub- 
licly pledged  to  unite  at  any  time  with  any  or  all 
Christian  denominations,  upon  the  Word  of  God. 
We  are  in  favor  of  Christian  union,  not  upon  "the 
historic  episcopacy,"  or  upon  historic  anything 
else,  but  upon  the  Bible.  There  is  nothing  un- 
reasonable in  this  demand.  If  it  is  bigotry  to  say 
that  God's  Word  is  right,  then  we  plead  guilty. 
In  another  place  I  will  show  the  evil  results  of 
Open  Communion  upon  Christian  charity;  but 
here  I  plead  only  that  we  are  not  uncharitable 
and  illiberal.  The  Southern  Baptist  Convention 
and  the  Northern  Anniversaries  unanimously 
passed  the  following  resolutions: 

"Whereas,  The  different  denominations  have 
lately  been  giving  unusual  attention  to  the  sub- 
ject of  Christian  union,  and 

"Whereas,  It  is  conceded  to  be  a  great  de- 
sideratum that  Christians  should  agree  in  all  im- 
portant points  of  doctrine  and  polity,  and 

' '  Whereas,  There  is  a  standard  recognized  as 


IGNORANCE  AND  PREJUDICE.  11 

authoritative  by  all  Christians,  viz:  the  Bible, 
therefore, 

''Resolved,  By  the  Southern  Baptist  Conven- 
tion (and  the  same  resolutions  were  passed  by  the 
Northern  Anniversaries),  representing  1,200,000 
communicants,  that  we  recognize  the  gravity  of 
the  problem  of  bringing  different  denominations 
to  see  alike  on  important  subjects  concerning 
Avhich  they  now  differ,  and  they  recognize  in  the 
teaching  of  Scripture  the  only  basis  on  which 
such  an  agreement  is  either  possible  or  desir- 
able, also 

''Resolved,  That  we  respectfully  propose  to  the 
general  bodies  of  om-  brethren  of  other  denomi- 
nations to  select  representative  scholars  who 
shall  consider  and  seek  to  determine  just  what  is 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible  on  the  leading  points 
of  difference  of  doctrine  and  polity  between  the 
denominations,  in  the  hope  that  they  can  at  least 
help  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  issues  in- 
volved; also 

"Resolved,  That  we  heartily  favor  that  the  re- 
sults of  the  proposed  conference  of  representa- 
tive scholars  be  widely  j)ublished  in  all  denomi- 
national papers  so  that  the  Christian  public  can 
be  thoroughly  informed  concerning  these  re- 
sults, and  that  progress  may  be  made  toward 
true  Christian  union." 

As  long  as  this  invitation  remains  unaccepted 
no  one  has  a  right  to  declare  that  we  are  unchar- 


12  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

itable  and  illiberal.  This  can  not  be  true:  for 
we  are  not  only  in  favor  of  toleration,  but  of  the 
widest  liberty  in  all  matters  of  conscience.  We 
believe  that  the  civil  law  has  nothing  to  do  with 
religion;  and  that  it  is  a  heaven-given  privilege 
for  every  man  to  worship  according  to  the  dic- 
tates of  his  own  conscience.  We  must  stand  or 
fall  before  God;  and  man  is  not  our  judge.  All 
we  ask  is  that  we  shall  have  the  same  right  to 
worship  God  that  we  cheerfully  grant  to  others. 
We  have  been  pioneers  in  this  work.  "  Freedom 
of  conscience,"  says  Mr.  Bancroft,  the  brilliant 
historian  of  the  United  States,  "unlimited  free- 
dom of  mind,  was,  from  the  first,  the  trophy  of 
the  Baptists." 

For  the  wonderful  change  that  has  taken  place 
in  England,  Dr.  Schaff  gives  the  credit  to  the 
Baptists.  "For  this  change  of  public  senti- 
ment," says  he,  "the  chief  merit  is  due  to  the 
English  Non-conformists,  who  in  the  school  of 
persecution  became  advocates  of  toleration, 
especially  to  the  Baptists  and  Quakers,  who 
made  religious  libert}^  (within  the  limits  of  the 
golden  rule)  an  article  of  their  creed  so  that  they 
could  not  consistently  persecute  even  if  they 
should  ever  have  a  chanco  to  do  so."  (Creeds  of 
Christ.,  vol.  1,  p.  803.) 

The  historian,  Skeats,  who  Avas  nob  a  Baptist, 
records  these  strong  words:  "It  is  the  singular 
and  the  distinguished  honor  of  the  Baptists  to 


IGNORANCI^  AXT)  PRK.rrDTCE.  13 

have  repudiated,  from  their  earliest  history,  all 
coercive  power  over  the  consciences  and  actions 
of  men  with  reference  to  religion.  No  sentence 
is  to  be  found  in  all  of  their  writings  inconsist- 
ent with  these  principles  of  Christian  liberty  and 
willinghood  which  are  now  equally  dear  to  all  of 
the  free  Congregational  churches  of  England. 
They  were  the  photo-evangelists  of  the  volun- 
tary principle."  (History  of  the  Free  Churches 
of  England,  p.  24.) 

So  strikingly  correct  and  sympathetic  are  the 
words  of  Gervinus,  the  most  astute  and  philo- 
sophic of  the  German  historians  of  this  century, 
that  I  present  them  here.  He  says:  "In  accord- 
ance with  these  principles  Roger  Williams  in- 
sisted, in  Massachusetts,  upon  allowing  entire 
freedom  of  conscience,  and  upon  the  entire  sepa- 
ration of  the  Church  and  the  State.  But  he  was 
obliged  to  flee,  and  in  1636  he  formed  in  Rhode 
Island  a  small  and  new  society,  in  which  perfect 
freedom  in  matters  of  faith  was  allowed,  and  in 
which  the  majority  ruled  in  all  civil  affairs. 
Here  iu  a  little  State,  the  fundamental  principles 
of  political  and  ecclesiastical  liberty  practically 
prevailed,  before  they  were  ever  taught  in  any 
of  the  schools  of  philosophy  in  Europe.  At  that 
time  people  predicted  only  a  short  existence  of 
these  democratical  experiments:  universal  suf- 
frage, universal  eligibility  to  office,  the  annual 
change  of  rulers,  perfect  religious   freedom — 


14  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

the  Miltonian  doctrines  of  schisms.  But  not 
only  have  these  ideas  and  these  forms  of  govern- 
ment maintained  themselves  here,  but  precisely 
from  this  little  State  have  they  extended  them- 
selves throughout  the  United  States.  They  have 
conquered  the  aristocratic  tendencies  in  Carolina 
and  New  York,  the  High  Church  in  Virginia,  the 
Theocracy  in  Massachusetts,  and  the  monarchy 
in  all  America.  They  have  given  laws  to  a  con- 
tinent, and  formidable  through  their  moral  in- 
fluence, they  lie  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  demo- 
cratic movements  which  are  now  shaking  the 
nations  of  Europe." 

I  shall  venture  to  quote  the  complimentary 
letter  of  George  Washington  to  the  Baptists.  He 
says:  "I  have  often  expressed  my  sentiments 
that  every  man  conducting  himself  as  a  good 
citizen,  and  being  accountable  alone  to  God  for 
his  religious  opinions,  ought  to  be  protected  in 
worshipping  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
conscience,  while  I  recollect,  with  satisfaction, 
that  the  religious  society  of  which  you  are  mem- 
bers have  been  throughout  America,  uniformly 
and  almost  unanimously  the  firm  friends  of  civil 
liberty,  and  the  preserving  promoters  of  our 
glorious  revolution,  I  can  not  hesitate  to  believe 
that  they  will  be  faithful  supporters  of  a  free, 
yet  efficient,  general  government.  Under  this 
pleasing  expectation,  I  rejoice  to  assure  them 
that  they  may  rely  on  my  best  wishes  and  en- 
deavors to  advance  their  prosperity." 


IGNORANCE  AND  PREJUDICE.  15 

I  can  not  believe  that  people  who  thus  love 
liberty,  and  contend  for  the  widest  freedom  of 
thought  and  worship,  will  be  either  uncharitable 
or  illiberal.  Wo  must  look  for  some  other  reason 
for  Close  Communion. 

The  last  cry  is  that  the  Baptists  are  ignorant. 
We  freely  confess  that  we  have  among  us  more 
ignorance  than  has  ever  done  us  any  good.  But 
the  denomination  that  can  not  reach  the  igno- 
rant and  the  poor  lacks  one  of  the  essential  fea- 
tures of  a  church  of  Christ.  There  are  those, 
however,  who  appear  honestly  to  believe  that 
we  hold  to  Close  Communion  through  sheer  igno- 
rance. While  it  is  a  fact  that  among  our  millions 
we  have  many  unlettered  people,  it  is  equally  a 
fact  that  in  scholarly  attainments  and  educa- 
tional facilities  we  occupy  no  mean  place.  I 
quote  the  tribute  of  the  great  Presbyterian,  Dr. 
Chalmers,  to  the  English  Baptists.  He  evidently 
thought  they  had  done  something  for  the  world. 
He  says :  ' '  Let  it  never  be  forgotten  of  the  Par- 
ticular Baptists  of  England,  that  they  form  the 
denomination  of  Puller  and  Carey  and  Ryland 
and  Hall  and  Poster;  that  they  have  organized 
among  the  greatest  of  all  missionary  enterprises ; 
that  they  have  enriched  the  Christian  literature 
of  our  country  with  authorsliip  of  the  most  ex- 
alted piety,  as  well  as  with  the  first  talent,  and 
the  first  eloquence;  that  they  have  waged  a  very 
noble  and  successful  war  with  the  hydra  of  Anti- 


16  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

nomianism;  that  perhaps  there  is  not  a  more  in- 
tellectual community  of  ministers  in  our  islands, 
or  who  have  put  forth  to  their  number  a  greater 
amount  of  mental  power  and  mental  activity  in 
the  defence  and  illustration  of  our  common  faith; 
and,  what  is  better  than  all  of  the  triumphs  of 
genius  or  understanding,  who  by  their  zeal  and 
fidelity  and  pastoral  labor  among  congregations 
which  they  have  reared,  have  done  more  to  swell 
the  list  of  genuine  discipleship  in  the  walks  of 
private  society — and  thus  to  both  uphold  and 
extend  the  living  Christianity  of  our  nation." 
(Com.  Romans,  Lee.  14,  p.  76.) 

In  the  United  States  the  Baptists  are  in  the 
front  rank  in  j)roviding  educational  facilities. 
Our  ministers  in  scholarly  ability  are  second  to 
none;  and  our  schools  are  of  the  very  best.  We 
have  always  been  the  advocates  of  education. 
The  oldest  and  largest  University  in  the  United 
States  is  Harvard.  The  first  money  it  ever  re- 
ceived for  an  endowment  was  from  a  Baptist; 
and  the  HoUis  family — Baptists — were  among  its 
most  munificent  benefactors.  Its  first  two  Presi- 
dents, Henry  Dunster  and  Charles  Chausey,  were 
Baptists.  President  Quincey  said  of  them:  "For 
learning  and  talents  they  have  been  surpassed 
by  no  one  of  their  successors."  The  Baptists 
assisted  Franklin  in  laying  the  foundations  of 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  have  been 
among  the  first  in  their  support  of   all    State 


v^ 


IGNORANCE  AND  PREJUDICE.  17 

schools.'  As  early  a  1764,  when  numbering  in  all 
America  only  60  churches  and  about  5,000  mem- 
bers, the  Baptists  founded  their  first  college, 
Brown  University  of  Rhode  Island.  Now  they 
have  28  chartered  colleges,  over  200  academies 
and  female  colleges,  and  9  theological  semina- 
ries. In  less  than  five  years  they  have  founded 
a  university  in  Chicago,  upon  a  wider  plane  than 
any  school  in  America,  with  an  endowment  al- 
ready little  less  than  four  millions  of  dollars. 
Nearly  all  of  our  colleges  have  recently  added 
largely  to  their  endowment  funds.  We  have  one 
man,  Mr.  J.  D.  Rockefeller,  who  has  given  nearly 
three  millions  of  dollars  for  education. 

The  Baptists  have  70  newspapers  in  the  United 
States  and  not  a  few  quarterlies  and  reviews. 

In  writers  they  have  been  second  to  none. 
The  book  that  has  reached  a  wider  circulation 
than  any  other  except  the  Bible,  and  has  been 
translated  into  every  tongue  of  earth,  was  writ- 
ten by  a  Baptist,  John  Bunyan.  John  Milton, 
author  of  Paradise  Lost,  was  a  Baptist.  Macau- 
lay  calls  these  two  the  original  minds  of  their 
century.  Gill  has  not  been  surpassed  as  a  com- 
mentator; and  indeed  time  would  fail  us  to  speak 
of  the  multitude  that  we  could  mention  with 
propriety. 

All  this  and  more  has  been  frankly  conceded 
by  others. 

Dr.    Baird,    in   his    great   work,    Religion    in 


18  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

America,  p.  463,  says:  "The  ministry  of  the  Bap- 
tists comprehends  a  body  of  men  who,  in  point 
of  talent,  learning  and  eloquence,  as  well  as  de- 
voted piety,  have  no  superiors  in  this  country." 

Dr.  T.  L.  Cuyler  recently  said  of  the  Baptists 
in  Philadelphia  and  elsewhere:  "They  are  a 
powerful  body  in  Philadelphia.  Let  us  thank 
God  that  their  great  army  corps  all  over  the  land 
are  so  stoutly  loyal  to  sound  doctrine  and  evan- 
gelical doctrine  and  progress. " 

The  late  Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover,  thus  expressed 
himself:  "I  entertain  the  most  cordial  esteem, 
love  and  confidence  toward  the  Baptists  as  a  de- 
nomination. I  have  the  freest  intercourse,  and 
the  sincerest  friendship  with  Baptist  ministers, 
theological  students,  and  private  Christians.  I 
have  wished  that  our  denomination — the  Congre- 
gationalist — was  as  free  from  erratic  specula- 
tions, and  as  well  grounded  in  the  doctrines  and 
experimental  principles  of  the  Puritans  as  the 
Baptists.  It  seems  to  me  that  they  are  the  Chris- 
tians who  are  likely  to  maintain  pure  Christian- 
ity, and  to  hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words." 

Dr.  Hase,  the  German  historian,  says:  "They 
agree  with,  and  even  exceed  the  Congregational- 
ists  in  their  rejection  of  all  human  authority  in 
matters  of  faith,  and  in  their  practical  mainte- 
nance of  the  independence  of  the  congregation." 
(Hist,  of  Christ.  Ch.,  p.  603.) 

The  Baptists  have  taken  the  lead  in  modern 


IGNORANCE  AND  PREJUDICE.  19 

times  in  the  cause  of  Foreign  Missions  and  in  the 
founding  of  Bible  societies.  In  1792,  under  Carey, 
they  formed  the  first  missionary  society  of  mod- 
ern times  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  heathen. 
When  Carey  made  the  proposition  to  send  the 
gospel  to  India  Dr.  Ryland  was  so  astounded  at 
its  audacity  that  he  sprang  to  his  feet  and  or- 
dered Carey  to  sit  down,  saying:  "When  God 
pleases  to  convert  the  heathen,  he  will  do  it  with- 
out your  aid  or  mine."  But  the  Baptist  cobbler 
became  the  forerunner  of  the  mighty  mission 
work  of  to-day. 

The  Rev.  J.  L.  Withrow  recently  said:  "The 
Baptist  church  is  in  repute  for  thorough-going 
piety;  a  piety  which  takes  the  Bible  as  God's 
book,  rather  than  as  a  book  with  some  stray 
breaths  of  God  through  it,  no  one  being  sure 
where  to  find  them ;  a  piety  which  grasps  the  doc- 
trines of  justifying  and  sanctifying  and  glorify- 
ing grace  with  a  grip  which  holds  as  a  vice;  a 
piety  which  one  hundred  years  ago,  before  any 
other  Protestant  soul  or  society  began  it,  arose 
to  the  divinest  enterprises  of  Christianity,  the 
enterprises  of  sending  the  gospel  to  all  the  ends 
of  the  earth.  It  was  Baptist  piety  which  did 
that.  It  was  Baptist  believers  who  began  that 
monthly  concert  of  prayer  for  Foreign  Missions 
which  has  been  heaping  up  prayers  before  the 
throne  of  God  for  a  century,  and  adding  to  them 
every  month  petitions  by  the  million!     What  a 


20  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

church  it  is  to  the  glory  of  the  Son  of  God  and 
the  good  of  this  needy  world! " 

As  an  outgrowth  of  this  mission  work,  in  1804, 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  was 
formed.  Joseph  Hughes,  a  Baptist  minister, 
bore  the  most  i)rominent  part  in  its  organization. 
As  one  has  quaintly  put  it:  "He  was  the  hands 
and  feet,  as  he  had  been  the  head  of  the  insti- 
tution." 

I  think  with  all  of  these  facts  before  me,  that 
none  of  these  are  the  reasons  that  Baptists  have 
for  believing  in,  and  practicing,  Close  Commun- 
ion. It  is  not  held  by  them  on  account  of  igno- 
rance, bigotry  or  selfishness.  It  may  be  that 
their  practice  is  founded  upon  the  Scriptures. 


THE  BAPTIST  POSITION  STATED.  21 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  BAPTIST  POSITION  STATED  AND  DEFENDED 
BY  THE  SCRIPTURES. 

THE  Baptists  are  strict  comm unionists  and 
are  likely  to  remain  such.  We  want  to  be 
just  as  close  as  the  Word  of  God.  If  we  have 
prospered  as  a  people,  it  is  because  we  have 
rigidly  adhered  to  the  Word  of  God.  Whenever 
we  turn  aside  from  this  well-trodden  path  for 
mere  sentimentality  or  transient  popularity,  the 
day  of  our  power  and  usefulness  is  gone.  We 
are  compelled  to  search  for  the  old  paths,  and 
when  we  have  found  them  to  walk  in  them. 
Despite  all  criticisms  and  abuse  we  have  pros- 
pered as  strict  communionists.  The  reason  is 
not  far  away.  In  the  face  of  all  clamor  we  have 
adhered  to  God's  Word  and  God  has  greatly 
honored  us.  What  he  has  done  in  the  past  he 
will  do  in  the  future.  There  is  neither  argument 
nor  wisdom  in  open  communion.  It  is  based 
upon  mere  sentiment,  and  that  a  false  sentiment. 
We  are  strict  communionists  and  we  are  going 
to  remain  strict. 

This  is  freely  admitted  by  Rev.  J.  L.  Withrow, 
Presbyterian,  in  an  able  article  in  the  Interior. 


22  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

He  says:  "Furthermore,  in  their  favor  it  is  to  be 
said,  they  have  proved,  beyond  peradventure, 
that  narrow  church  doors  and  severe  communion 
conditions  do  not  bar  people  out  of  the  Christian 
church.  Against  creeds  and  communion  bars 
there  is  ceaseless  outcry  from  some  quarters. 
The  Baptists  have  no  chaptered  creed,  but  their 
unwritten  creed,  as  England's  unwritten  consti- 
tution, is  more  insurmountable  than  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  of  Episcopacy,  or  the  ponderous 
chapters  of  theWestminster  Confession.  Against 
chaptered  creeds  the  complaints  are  so  urgent 
that  Congregationalists  have  recently  made  a 
new  one — you  may  safely  offer  a  dollar  for  every 
new  convert  which  has  been  captured  by  that 
new  creed  who  otherwise  would  not  have  been 
secured.  And  now  the  Presbyterians  are  wast- 
ing a  heap  of  hard-earned  money  (contributed, 
much  of  it,  by  God's  poor  for  better  purposes), 
and  are  stirring  bad  blood  between  the  brethren 
in  an  attempt  to  smooth  off  and  sweeten  up  their 
creed.  The  claim  is  that  we  keep  people  out  of 
the  church,  and  candidates  out  of  our  ministry 
with  such  strict  conditions  as  now  exist.  It 
sounds  like  arrant  nonsense  in  presence  of  the 
fact  that  the  Baptist  church  is  the  strictest 
church  we  have;  and  yet  it  is  growing — not  as  a 
weed,  but  as  the  Word  of  God  is  promised  to 
grow.  There  is  no  church,  so  far  as  we  know, 
into  which  it  is  more  difficult  to  enter  than  the 


THE  BAPTIST  POSITION  STATED.  23 

Baptist  through  theological,  ecclesiastical  and 
ceremonial  conditions.  And  yet  there  are 
throngs  pressing  through  its  narrow  threshold. 
Whoever  cares  to  study  this  subject  of  easy  and 
exacting  conditions  of  church  membership,  ask- 
ing which  is  most  likely  to  secure  accessions  to 
the  fellowship  of  professing  Christians,  should 
compare  the  history  of  the  Baptist  church  with 
that  of  the  liberal  churches,  so-called." 

The  practice  of  restricted  communion  is  no 
arbitrary  affair  with  us.  We  think  the  Lord  has 
laid  down  in  the  New  Testament  certain 

PREREQUISITES  TO  THE  COMMUNION. 

We  think  the  Scriptures  warrant  definite  terms 
of  approach  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  divine 
order  is,  first,  faith;  second,  baptism;  third, 
church  membership;  fourth,  discipline;  fifth, 
doctrine;  sixth,  the  Lord's  Supper.  No  man  has 
a  right  to  the  Lord's  table  who  has  not  exercised 
faith,  been  baptized,  and  is  a  member  of  the 
church,  subject  to  its  discipline,  and  agreeing 
with  it  in  doctrine.  This  is  so  important  that  I 
shall  illustrate  and  defend  it  from  a  number  of 
standpoints. 

The  Lord  Jesus  himself  instituted  the  Supper. 
A  record  of  this  event  is  given  in  Matthew 
26:26-30:  "And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took 
bread,  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to 
the  disciples,   and  said.  Take,  eat;    this  is  my 


24  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks, 
and  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  of  it; 
for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament,  which 
is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins.  But 
I  say  unto  you,  I  will  not  drink  henceforth  of 
this  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  when  I  drink 
it  new  with  you  in  my  Father's  kingdom.  And 
when  they  had  sung  a  hymn,  they  went  out  into 
the  mount  of  Olives. " 

We  have  no  right  to  change  a  qualification. 
"Were  these  disciples  baptized  ?  There  is  no  doubt 
about  it.  Robert  Hall,  the  foremost  defender  of 
open  communion,  admits  this.  He  says:  "It  is 
almost  certain  that  some,  probably  the  most  of 
them,  had  been  baptized  by  John."  (Works,  vol. 
1,  p.  303.)  In  the  Gospel  of  John  at  least  four 
of  the  disciples  were  declared  to  be  disciples  of 
John  the  Baptist.  (1:36-40.)  Jesus  also  made 
and  baptized  disciples.  (John  4:1.)  It  is  not 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  Jesus  would  have  se- 
lected men  to  represent  himself,  who  had  refused 
to  obey  the  first  and  plainest  command  of  the 
Gospel.  "The  practice  of  the  first  Christian 
church,''  says  Knapp,  "confirms  the  point  that 
the  baptism  of  John  was  considered  essentially 
the  same  with  Christian  baptism.  For  those  who 
acknowledged  that  they  had  professed,  by  the 
baptism  of  John,  to  believe  in  Jesus  as  the 
Christ,  and  who  in  consequence  of  this  had  be- 
come in  fact  his  disciples,  and  had  believed  in 


THE  BAPTIST  POSITION  STATED.  25 

him,  were  not,  in  a  single  instance,  baptized 
again  into  Christ,  because  this  was  considered  as 
having  been  ah-eady  done.  Hence  we  do  not  find 
that  any  apostle  or  any  other  disciple  of  Jesus 
was  the  second  time  baptized;  not  even  that 
ApoUos  mentioned  in  Acts  xviii:25,  because  he 
had  before  believed  in  Jesus  Christ,  although  he 
had  received  only  the  baptism  of  John."  (Christ. 
Theol.,  p.  485.) 

But  the  Scriptui-es  do  not  leave  us  in  doubt  on 
this  subject.  When  an  apostle  was  to  be  chosen 
in  the  place  of  Judas  Iscariot,  he  was  required  to 
be  a  disciple  of  John,  as  were  the  rest  of  the 
apostles.  I  quote  Acts  1:21,22:  "  Wherefore  of 
those  men  which  have  accompanied  with  us  all 
the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out 
among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto 
that  same  day  that  he  was  taken  up  from  us, 
must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of 
his  resurrection."' 

This  passage  undoubtedly  teaches  that  an 
apostle  must  have  been  a  disciple  of  John.  In 
fact  this  is  made  an  absolute  qualification.  This 
interpretation  is  sustained  by  the  foremost 
scholars. 

Alexander,  Presbyteriau,  says:  "The  idea  evi- 
dently is,  that  the  candidate  must  not  only  have 
believed  Christ's  doctrines  and  submitted  to  his 
teaching,  as  a  disciple  in  the  widest  sense,  but 
formed  a  part  of  that  more  permanent  body, 


26  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

which  appears  to  have  attended  him  from  place 
to  place,  throughout  the  whole  course  of  his 
public  ministry."     (Acts  of  the  Apostles  Expl.) 

Gloag  says :  "In  these  verses  Peter  assigns 
the  necessary  qualifications  of  the  new  apostle. 
He  must  have  associated  with  them  during  all  of 
the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out 
among  them;  that  is,  during  the  whole  of  his 
public  ministry.  He  states  the  commencement 
of  that  period  to  be  the  baptism  of  John,  and  its 
termination  to  be  the  day  of  the  ascension." 
(Grit,  and  Exeget.  Com.  on  Acts.) 

Burkitt  says:  "That  is  one  who  had  followed 
Christ  from  his  baptism  to  his  ascension." 

Adam  Clarke,  Methodist,  says:  "They  judged 
it  necessary  to  fill  up  this  blank  in  the  aposto- 
late,  by  a  person  who  had  been  an  eye  witness  of 
the  acts  of  our  Lord.  Went  in  and  out.  A  phrase 
which  includes  all  the  actions  of  life.  Beginning 
from  the  baptism  of  John.  From  the  time  that 
Christ  was  baptized  by  John  in  Jordan;  for  it 
was  at  that  time  that  his  public  ministry  prop- 
erly began."     (Com.,  vol.  3,  p.  694.) 

Barnes,  Presbyterian,  says:  "The  word  'be- 
ginning from '  in  the  original  refers  to  the  Lord 
Jesus.  The  meaning  may  be  thus  expressed, 
'  during  the  time  in  which  the  Lord  Jesus,  be- 
ginning (his  ministry)  at  the  time  he  was  bap- 
tized by  John,  went  in  and  out  among  us,  until 
the  time  in  which  he  was  taken  up, '  etc.     Prom 


THE  BAPTIST  POSITION  STATED.  27 

those  who  had  during  that  time  been  the  constant 
companions  of  the  Lord  Jesus  must  one  be 
taken,  who  would  thus  be  a  witness  of  his  whole 
ministry." 

It  is  no  answer  to  assert  that  John's  baptism 
was  not  Christian  baptism;  for  beyond  doubt 
this  was  all  the  baptism  Christ  ever  received, 
and  none  of  the  persons  baptized  by  John  were 
ever  rebaptized.  It  answers  every  requirement 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  we  ought  to  be  satisfied. 
"The  object  of  John's  baptism,"  says  Knapp, 
"was  the  same  of  that  of  Christian;  and  from 
this  it  may  be  at  once  concluded  that  it  did  not 
differ  essentially  from  the  latter.  John  exhorted 
the  persons  baptized  by  him  to  repentance  and 
to  faith  in  the  Messiah  who  was  shortly  to  aji- 
pear,  and  make  these  duties  obligatory  upon 
them  by  this  rite.  And  as  soon  as  Jesus  pub- 
licly appeared,  John  asserted  in  the  most  forci- 
ble manner  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  and  so  re- 
quired of  all  whom  he  had  then  or  before  bap- 
tized, that  they  should  believe  in  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah.  Now  in  Christian  baptism,  repentance 
and  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  are  likewise 
the  principal  things  which  are  required  on  the 
part  of  the  subjects  of  this  rite. "  (Christ.  Theol. , 
p.  485.) 

Turrettin  maintains  with  great  learning  and 
force  that  ' '  the  baptism  of  John  was  the  same 
essentially  with  that  of  Christ,"  or  Christian 
baptism. 


28  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Calvin  says :  * '  This  makes  it  perfectly  certain 
that  the  ministry  of  John  was  the  very  same  as 
that  which  was  afterwards  delegated  to  the 
apestles.  For  the  different  hands  by  which  bap- 
tism is  administered  do  not  make  it  a  different 
baptism,  but  sameness  of  doctrine  proves  it  to  be 
the  same.  John  and  the  ajjostles  agreed  in  one 
doctrine.  Both  baptized  unto  repentance,  both 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  both  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  from  whom  repentance  and  remission  of 
sins  j)roceed.  John  pointed  to  him  as  the  Lamb 
of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world, 
thus  describing  him  as  the  victim  accepted  of 
the  Father,  the  propitiation  of  righteousness, 
and  the  author  of  salvation.  What  could  the 
apostles  add  to  this  confession?"  (Inst.  Christ. 
Relig.,  vol.  3,  pp.  332,  333.) 

We  are  not,  therefore,  left  in  doubt  about  bap- 
tism preceding  the  Lord's  Supper. 

You  will  also  notice  that  in  the  celebration  of 
this  first  Supper  there  was  no  one  present  except 
the  twelve  apostles.  His  mother  was  not  there; 
Mary,  Martha  and  Lazarus  were  not  present; 
the  seventy  were  not  admitted,  indeed  there  were 
no  other  participants,  and  no  spectators.  There 
was  no  foolish  sentimentality  about  this  observ- 
ance. Not  one  argument  that  open  commun- 
ionists  urge  can  be  based  upon  the  institution  of 
the  Supper  by  Jesus. 

This  is  the  teaching  of  the  great  commission. 


THE  BAPTIST  POSTTTOX  STATED.  29 

Matthew  28:19,20,  states:  "'Go,  ye  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baj)tizing  them  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  you:  and,  lo,  I  am  with 
you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  I 
love  to  go  back  to  foundation  principles,  and 
learn  what  Christ  has  commanded,  and  then  I 
know  hoAV  to  obey.  By  this  law  we  are  required 
in  the  first  place,  to  teach  or  preach  the  Gospel; 
secondly,  to  baptize  those  who  believe;  and 
thirdly,  to  instruct  such  baptized  believers  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  Christ  has  com- 
manded; and  the  order  in  which  these  several 
duties  are  here  stated,  is  as  imperative  as  the 
duties  themselves. 

This  argument  is  so  important,  and  the  logic 
of  Dr.  Hibbard,  the  Methodist  writer,  so  just, 
that  I  transcribe  a  paragraph  from  him.  "The 
reader  will  perceive,"'  says  he,  "that  the  argu- 
ment is  based  entirely  upon  the  order  of  the 
apostolic  commission.  It  may  be  questioned  by 
some  v/hether  the  argument  is  genuine,  and 
whether  it  is  entitled  to  any  considerable  force. 
But  suppose  we  assume  an  opposite  ground? 
Suppose  we  say  that  the  things  commanded  are 
important  to  be  done,  but  the  order  observed  in 
the  commission  is  a  subject  of  indifference.  Now 
what  will  be  the  consequences  of  this  position  ? 
What  but  total  and  irretrievable  confusion?  The 


30  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

apostles  go  forth;  they  are  intent  upon  doing  all 
that  Christ  commanded  them,  but  the  order  of 
the  duties  is  a  subject  of  indifference.  The  con- 
sequence is  that  some  are  baptized  before  they 
are  converted  from  heathenism;  some  receive  the 
holy  supper  before  either  baptism  or  conversion ; 
others  are  engaged  in  a  course  of  instruction  be- 
fore they  are  discipled;  and  the  most  incoherent 
and  unsuitable  practices  everywhere  prevail. 
Improper  persons  are  baptized,  or  baptism  is  im- 
properly delayed;  the  holy  supper  is  approached 
before  the  candidate  is  duly  prepared,  and  it  is 
therefore  desecrated,  or  it  is  unduly  withheld 
from  rightful  communicants.  Is  not  the  pre- 
scribed ORDER,  therefore,  in  the  administration 
of  the  ordinances,  and  the  duties  of  the  apostolic 
commission,  all  important?  And  thus  we  hold 
that  Christ  enjoined  the  order  as  well  as  the  duties 
themselves;  and,  in  this  order  of  Christ,  baptism 
precedes  communion  at  the  Lord's  table."  (Hib- 
bard  on  Bapt.,  P.  2,  p.  177.) 

The  custom  of  the  apostles  is  in  line  with  the 
commands  of  Christ.  The  divine  order  is  beau- 
tifully set  forth  in  Acts  2:41,42:  "Then  they  that 
gladly  received  the  word  were  baptized :  and  the 
same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  three 
thousand  souls.  And  they  continued  steadfastly 
in  the  apostle's  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in 
breaking  of  bread  and  in  prayers."  The  order  is, 
teaching,  gladly  receiving  the  word,  baptism, 


THE  BAPTIST  POSITION  STATED.  31 

and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Syriac,  the  oldest 
existing  translation  of  the  New  Testament  so 
understands  this  passage. 

Calvin  says :  "  I  would  have  breaking  of  bread 
understood  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  (Com.  on 
Acts.) 

Blount,  Episcopalian,  says:  "I  consider 'the 
fellowship '  or  '  communion '  and  '  the  breaking  of 
bread '  to  stand  in  close  combination,  and  to  in- 
dicate that  another  bond  by  which  these  first 
Christians  were  joined  to  the  apostles,  to  one 
another,  and  to  a  unity  in  Christ,  was  a  collective 
participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper."  (Christ.  Ch. 
First  Three  Cent.) 

Baumgarten,  Presbyterian,  says:  "The  third 
characteristic  that  is  noticed  in  respect  to  the 
baptized  is  the  breaking  of  bread.  The  com- 
munion of  the  Lord  with  his  disciples  may  very 
properly  be  characteristic  that  the  disciples  who, 
after  his  resurrection,  had  recognized  him  nei- 
ther by  his  form  nor  by  his  discourse,  imme- 
diately knew  him  upon  his  breaking  of  bread 
with  them.  This  mode  of  communion  was  there- 
by consecrated;  and  appears  as  the  proper  me- 
dium of  a  community  which  lived  together  as 
one  family."     (Com.  Acts  of  Apos.) 

Burkitt  says:  "'Another  religious  office  which 
they  continued  constant,  was  the  breaking  of 
bread;  that  is,  receiving  the  sacrament." 

Bengel  says:  "The  Lord's  Supper  is  included 
in  this  expression."     (Gnomon  of  New  Test.) 


32  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Every  instance  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment confirms  this  view.  The  first  duty  after  re- 
pentance and  faith  was  baptism.  As  soon  as  the 
Samaritans  believed  the  things  PhiHp  preached 
they  were  baptized  both  men  and  women.  (Acts 
8:12.)  The  eunuch  was  baptized  at  once  upon  a 
profession  of  his  faith.  (Acts  8:36,37.)  As  soon 
as  the  scales  fell  from  the  eyes  of  Paul  he  was 
baptized  (Acts  9:18) ;  and  the  Philipian  jailer  was 
baptized  the  same  hour  of  the  night  in  which  he 
believed.  (Acts  16:33.)  In  none  of  these  cases 
was  there  any  time  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per between  a  profession  of  faith  and  baptism. 

I  read  in  Acts  20:7:  "And  upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week  the  disciples  came  together  to  break 
bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart 
on  the  morrow;  and  continued  his  speech  until 
midnight."  The  Syriac  version,  and  well  nigh 
all  commentators  agree  that  this  passage  refers 
to  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  We 
know  that  none  but  disciples  were  present,  for 
the  passage  distinctly  says  this. 

Gloag  says:  "That  is  to  celebrate  the  Lord's 
Supper." 

Paul  in  writing  to  the  Corinthian  church  says : 
' '  For  first  of  all  when  we  come  together  in  the 
church,  I  hear  that  there  be  divisions  among 
you;  and  I  partly  believe  it.  For  I  have  received 
of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you, 
That  the  Lord  Jesus  the  same  night  in  which  he 


THE  BAPTIST  POSITION  STATP]D.  83 

was  betrayed  took  bread;  and  when  lie  had  given 
thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said,  Tal^e,  eat;  this  is  my 
body,  which  is  broken  for  you:  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took 
the  cup,  when  he  had  supped  saying,  This  cup  is 
the  new  testament  in  my  blood;  this  do  ye,  as  oft 
as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as 
often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye 
do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come.  Wherefore 
whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this 
cup  of  the  Lord,  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  But  let  a  man 
examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that 
bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup." 

Paul  distinctly  says  he  was  addressing  the 
church,  verse  18,  at  Corinth.  There  is  not  a 
word  said  about  outsiders.  Indeed  the  whole  of 
this  epistle  is  in  regard  to  disorderly  members  in 
the  Corinthian  church.  This  passage  proves  be- 
yond doubt  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  church 
ordinance. 

In  chapter  12:12,13  Paul  says  that  baptism 
precedes  the  Lord's  Supper.  Says  he :  "  For  as 
the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all 
the  members  of  that  one  body,  being  many,  are 
one  body;  so  also  is  Christ.  For  by  one  Spii'it 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free; 
and  have  all  been  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit. " 

The  argument  is  clear.     They  have  all  been 

3 


34  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

baptized  into  the  one  body  or  church;  and  they 
have  been  made  to  "drink,"  or  participate  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  into  one  Spirit.  Bloomfield  says 
of  this  passage:  "This  is  the  interpretation 
adopted  by  almost  all  commentators,  ancient  and 
modern,  who  here  suppose  an  allusion  to  the 
two  sacraments." 

Olshausen  says:  "The  allusion  in  this  passage 
to  X.  1,  seq.  is  unmistakable,  so  that  we  may  see 
the  epotistheemen  points  to  the  communion." 
(Com.,  vol  4,  p.  346.) 

Burkitt  says :  ' '  By  baptism  we  were  admitted 
into  his  church;  and  this  union  of  ours,  one  with 
another,  is  testified  and  declared  by  our  com- 
munion at  the  Lord's  table,  which  is  here  called 
a  drinking  into  the  Spirit. " 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says :  ' '  The  allusion  is  sup- 
posed by  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Beza  to  be  to  the 
Lord's  Supper." 

Van  Oosterzee,  Presbyterian,  says:  "It  is 
worthy  of  notice  that  baptism  and  the  Supper 
are  at  least  once  mentioned  by  him  in  one  breath, 
and  placed  upon  a  level."  (Theol.  of  New  Test., 
p.  328.) 

MacKnight  says :  ' '  For  indeed  with  the  gifts 
of  one  Spirit,  we  all  have  been  baptized  into  one 
body,  or  church,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
whether  slaves  or  freemen,  and  all  are  equally 
entitled  to  the  privileges  of  that  one  body,  and 
derive  equal  honor  from  them;  and  all  have  been 


THE  BAPTIST  POSITION  STATED.  35 

made  to  drink  in  the  Lord's  Supper  of  one  Spirit 
of  faith  and  love,  by  which  the  one  body  is  ani- 
mated." 

The  priority  of  baptism  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  likewise  taught  in  1  Cor.  10:1-3.  The  passage 
reads:  "Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye 
should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all  of  our  fathers 
were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through 
the  sea;  and  were  all  baptized  into  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea;  and  did  all  eat  the  same 
spiritual  meat;  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spirit- 
ual drink." 

Olshausen  says:  "Thus  in  this  passage  the 
history  of  Israel  is  typically  conceived  as  refer- 
ring to  the  sacramental  rites  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  which  contain  like  holy  vessels 
all  the  blessings  of  the  gospels;  and  thus  in  this 
very  passage  lies  a  powerful  argument  for  these 
two  sacraments."     (Com.,  vol.  4,  p.  308.) 

Meyer  says:  "Just  as  all  receive  the  self  same 
type  of  baptism  (verses  1,2),  so  too  all  were  par- 
takers of  one  and  the  same  analogue  of  the 
Christian  ordinance  of  the  Supper,  so  that  each 
one  therefore  stood  on  the  very  same  level  of 
apparent  certainty  of  not  being  cast  off  by  God." 

Bishop  EUicott  says:  "The  spiritual  food  re- 
ferred to  was,  it  hardly  need  to  be  said,  that 
which  typified  one  part  of  the  other  sacrament." 

Godet  says:  "As  the  holy  Supper  serves  to 
maintain  in  salvation  those  who  have  entered 


36  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

into  it  by  the  faith  professed  in  baptism,  so  the 
Israelites  also  received,  after  the  initial  deliver- 
ance, the  favors  necessary  to  their  preservation. 
These  benefits,  corresponding  to  the  bread  and 
wine  of  the  Supper,  Avere  the  manna  daily  re- 
ceived, and  the  water  which  God  caused  to  issue 
from  a  rock  in  two  cases  of  exceptional  dis- 
tress." 

Alford  says:  "They  had  what  answered  to  one 
Christian  sacrament,  baptism;  now  the  Apostle 
shows  that  they  were  not  without  a  symbolic 
correspondence  to  the  other,  the  Lord's  Supper. " 

Dr.  Hodge  says:  "As  the  miraculous  deliver- 
ance and  miraculous  guidance  of  the  Israelites 
was  their  baptism,  so  being  miraculously  fed  was 
their  Lord's  Supper." 

Stanley  says:  "  This  is  the  natural  expression 
for  the  voluntary  pledge  involved  in  Christian 
baptism.  The  food  and  drink  are  parallel  to  the 
Lord's  Supper." 

On  this  point  the  authorities  are  conclusive. 

From  these  considerations  we  think  the  argu- 
ments for  baptism  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  are  most  conclusive.  When  once  this 
proposition  is  admitted  our  argument  is  impreg- 
nable. 

But  we  can  go  a  step  further  in  this  argument. 
We  are  not  only  called  upon  to  obey  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  Gospel,  but  we  are  required  to  obey 
them  in  the  divine  order.     The  Scriptures  are 


THE  BAPTIST  POSITION  STATED.  37 

unmistakable  on  this  point.  Notice  the  instruc- 
tions to  the  churches. 

To  the  church  at  Corinth  Paul  writes :  '  •  Where- 
fore I  beseech  you  be  ye  followers  of  me.  For 
this  cause  have.  I  sent  unto  you  Timotheu's,  who 
is  my  beloved  son,  and  faithful  in  the  Lord,  who 
shall  bring  you  into  remembrance  of  my  ways 
which  be  in  Christ,  as  I  teach  everywhere  in 
every  church. "  (1  Cor.  4 :16, 17. )  "  Be  ye  followers 
of  me,  even  as  I  am  also  of  Christ.  Now  I  praise 
you,  brethren,  that  ye  remember  me  in  all 
things,  and  keep  the  ordinances,  as  I  delivered 
them  to  you.''  (1  Cor.  11:1,2.)  "For  I  have  re- 
ceived of  the  Lord  that  which  I  have  delivered 
unto  you; "  and  he  immediately  gives  directions 
in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper.     (1  Cor.  11:23.) 

To  the  church  at  Philippi:  "Brethren,  be  fol- 
lowers together  of  me,  and  mark  them  which 
walk  so  as  ye  have  us  for  an  ensample;  "  and  this 
exhortation:  "Let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  let 
us  mind  the  same  thing."     (Phil.  3:16,17.) 

To  the  church  at  Colosse :  ' '  For  though  I  be 
absent  in  the  flesh,  yet  am  I  with  you  in  the 
Spirit,  judging  and  beholding  your  order,  and 
the  steadfastness  in  the  faith.  Beware  lest  any 
man  spoil  you  through  philosophy  and  vain  de- 
ceit, after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudi- 
ments of  the  world,  and  not  after  Christ." 
(2:5,8.) 

To  the  church  at  Thessalonica:   "Therefore, 


38  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions 
which  ye  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word  or 
our  epistle."  (2  Thes.  2:15.)  "And  we  have  con- 
fidence in  the  Lord  touching  you,  that  ye  both 
do  and  will  do  the  things  which  we  command 
you."     (2  Thes.  3:5.) 

No  comment  on  these  Scriptures  is  needed. 
We  have  no  right  to  vary  or  change  God's  com- 
mands. He  gave  us  the  divine  order  and  we 
ought  to  obey  him  in  that  order. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  39 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

THE  Greek  and  Latin  fathers  are  quite  ex- 
plicit upon  the  relative  position  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper.  As  far  as  I  have  ob- 
served there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among 
them  on  the  subject.  I  will  let  them  speak  for 
themselves. 

Justin  Martyr,  second  century,  says :  ' '  This 
food  is  called  among  us  the  eucharist,  of  which 
no  one  is  allowed  to  partake  but  the  man  who 
believes  that  the  things  which  we  teach  are  true, 
and  who  has  been  washed  with  the  washing  that 
is  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  unto  regenera- 
tion, and  who  is  so  li\dng  as  Christ  has  enjoined. 
For  not  as  common  bread  and  common  drink  do 
we  receive  these. "  (Apol.  1  c.  Ixvi.  Patrologiae, 
Migne,  vol.  6,  p.  427.) 

The  second  canon  of  the  Council  of  Antioch, 
344,  orders  that  those  who  came  into  the  church 
and  heard  the  service,  so  far  as  the  lections  of 
Scripture,  but  declined  to  partake  in  the  prayers 
of  the  people  or  to  communicate,  should  be  cast 
out  of  the  church  until  they  should  have  pro- 
fessed and  repented  of  their  fault."  (Canon 
Apost.,  c.  9  (10).  Hefele's  Hist.  Councils,  vol.  2, 
p.  67.) 


40  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

The  second  Council  of  Carthage  says:  "No 
stranger  shall  be  admitted  to  receive  the  com- 
munion in  another  church,  without  a  letter  of 
recommendation  from  his  own  bishop. "  (Hefele's 
Hist.  Coun.,  vol.  2,  p.  187.) 

Hij^polytus,  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, in  a  fragment  preserved  of  his  works, 
makes  baptism  precede  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Dollinger  also  gives  this  account  of  a  work  of 
Hippolytus:  "In  a  small  treatise,  in  which  he 
castigates  and  exhorts  the  Jews,  he  def)icts  the 
marvelous  spectacle  of  Israel  pressing,  humbled 
and  penitent,  to  receive  baptism,  and  begging 
for  the  food  of  grace— the  Blessed  Bread. "  (Hip- 
polytus and  Callistus,  p.  319.) 

The  learned  Baron  Bunsen,  in  commenting  on 
Hippolytus  and  his  times,  says:  "Catechetical 
instruction,  as  a  general  rule,  was  limited  to 
three  years;  so  that  the  catechumen,  after  hav- 
ing completed  the  first  year  satisfactorily,  might 
be  permitted  to  hear  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
sermon;  at  the  conclusion  of  which,  after  solemn 
prayer  and  the  blessing,  he  was  dismissed  before 
the  worship  of  the  believers,  the  service  of  the 
general  congregation,  commenced.  Nothing  can 
be  more  natural;  for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  the  solemn  act  of  the  believers  and 
implied  reception  into  the  Christian  community, 
of  which  it  was  intended  to  be  the  sacred  symbol. 
*   *    *   No  one  can  take  part  in  the  solemn  cere- 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  41 

mony  of  a  close  societij,  except  one  who  has  been 
received  into  it.  To  have  allowed  it  would  have 
been  a  contradiction  in  terms."  (Hippolytus  and 
His  Age,  vol.  2,  p.  108.) 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  347,  says:  "After  the  bap- 
tism followed  the  holy  communion,  of  which  all 
the  newly  baptized  were  partakers,  therein  be- 
coming '  of  one  body  and  of  one  blood '  and  there 
partaking  of  a  heavenly  bread,  and  of  a  cup  of 
salvation,  that  sanctify  both  soul  and  body." 
(Myst.  Catch,  iv.    Patrologise,  vol.  33,  p.  1102.) 

Origin  says:  "  It  doth  not  belong  to  every  one 
to  eat  of  this  bread,  and  to  drink  of  this  cup. " 
(Com.  in  Joan.,  vol.  2,  p.  345.) 

Jerome,  the  most  learned  of  the  fathers,  400, 
says :  ' '  Catechumens  cannot  communicate  at  the 
Lord's  table,  being  unbaptized. "  (Patrologias, 
vol.  22,  p.  658.) 

Augustine,  400,  speaking  of  administering  bap- 
tism to  infants,  says :  "Of  which  certainly  they 
cannot  partake  unless  they  are  baptized."  (Ani- 
madversiones  t.  ii.  AlsoDePecat.    Remiss,  lib.  i.) 

The  Didache  says:  "But  let  no  one  eat  or 
drink  of  youi*  eucharist,  except  those  baptized 
into  the  name  of  the  Lord;  for  as  regards  this  also 
the  Lord  has  said:  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  to 
the  dogs."     (Didache,  C.  ix,  sec.  5.) 

In  the  Recognitions  of  Clement  I  read:  "For 
he  who  wished  soon  to  be  baptized  is  separated 
but  a  little  time,  but  he  for  a  longer  who  wishes 


42  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

to  be  baptized  later.  E\"ery  one  therefore  has  it 
in  his  own  power  to  demand  a  shorter  or  longer 
time  for  his  repentance;  and  therefore  it  lies 
with  you,  when  you  wish  it,  to  come  to  our  table; 
and  not  with  us,  who  are  not  permitted  to  take 
food  with  any  one  who  has  not  been  baptized. " 
(Recog.,  B.  ii,  C.  Ixxii.  Patrologise,  vol.  1,  p. 
1282.) 

The  Apostolic  Constitutions  say:  "But  if  he 
afterwards  repents,  and  turns  from  his  error, 
then,  as  we  receive  the  heathen,  when  they  wish 
to  repent,  into  the  church  indeed  to  hear  the 
word,  but  do  not  receive  them  to  communion 
until  they  have  received  the  seal  of  baptism,  and 
are  made  complete  Christians;  so  we  do  not  per- 
mit such  as  these  to  enter  only  to  hear,  until  they 
show  the  fruit  of  repentance,  that  by  hearing 
the  word  they  may  not  utterly  and  irrevocably 
be  lost. "  (Apos.  Con. ,  B.  2,  sec.  5,  c.  xxxix.  Pa- 
trologise,  vol.  1,  p.  694.) 

Dr.  Philip  Schaff  commenting  on  this  says  that 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions  ' '  lay  great  stress  on 
the  exclusion  of  unbelievers  from  the  eucharist." 
(Teaching,  p.  193.) 

Jobius  says:  "We  are  baptized,  annointed,  and 
then  thought  worthy  of  the  precious  blood." 
(DoUinger's  Hist.  Christ.  Ch.,  vol.  2,  p.  324.) 

In  the  life  of  Basil  it  is  recorded  that:  "Max- 
imus,  the  bishop,  baptized  him  an  Eubulus,  and 
clothed  them  with  white  garments,  and,  annoint- 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  43 

ing  them  with  the  holy  chrism,  gave  them  the 
communion."     (Amphiloch.,  vit.  Basil,  cap.  v.) 

TertuUian,  the  tirst  of  the  Latin  fathers,  says: 
"To  deal  with  this  matter  briefly,  I  shall  begin 
with  baptism.  When  we  are  going  to  enter  the 
water,  but  a  little  before,  in  the  presence  of  the 
congregation,  and  under  the  hand  of  the  presi- 
dent, we  solemnly  profess  that  we  disown  the 
devil,  and  his  pomp,  and  his  angels.  Hereupon 
w^e  are  thrice  immersed,  making  a  somewhat 
ampler  pledge  than  the  Lord  has  appointed  in  the 
gospel.  *  *  *  Then  we  also,  in  congregations 
before  daybreak,  and  from  the  hand  of  none  but 
the  president,  receive  the  sacrament  of  the  eu- 
charist,  which  the  Lord  both  commanded  to  be 
eaten  at  meal  times,  and  enjoined  to  be  taken  by 
all  alike."  (De  Corona,  c.  3.  Patrologiae,  vol.  1, 
p.  98.) 

Bede,  A.  D.  613,  says:  "If  you  will  be  baptized 
into  the  salutary  fountain  as  your  father  was, 
you  may  also  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  he 
did;  but  if  you  despise  the  former,  ye  cannot  in 
any  wise  receive  the  latter. "  (Eccl.  Hist. ,  lib.  ii, 
cap.  V.    Patrologias,  vol.  95.) 

Theophylact,  A.  D.  1100,  says:  "No  unbap- 
tized  person  partakes  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 
(On  Math.  14.) 

Bonaventura,  1200,  says:  "Faith,  indeed,  is 
necessary  to  all  of  the  sacraments,  but  especially 
to  the  reception  of  baptism,  because  baptism  is 


44  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

the  first  among  the  sacraments."  (Apud  Forbe- 
sium,  Instruct.  Historic.  Theolog.,  lib  x,  cap. 
iv.  9.) 

We  can  reach  the  same  conclusion  that  baptism 
precedes  communion  from  another  standpoint. 
The  word  mass,  which  is  now  used  to  designate 
the  communion  in  the  Catholic  church,  origi- 
nated in  the  ancient  church,  in  the  dismissal  of 
the  unbaptized  from  the  congregation  before  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Dr.  SchafE 
says  of  this  word:  "The  name  missa  (from  which 
our  mass  is  derived)  occurs  first  in  Augustine 
and  in  the  acts  of  the  council  of  Carthage,  A.  D. 
398.  It  arose  from  the  formula  of  dismission  at 
the  close  of  each  part  of  the  service,  and  is 
equivalent  to  missio,  dismissio.  Augustine  (Serm. 
49,  c.  8) :  '  Take  notice,  after  the  sermon,  the  dis- 
missal (missa)  of  the  catechumens  takes  place; 
the  faithful  will  remain. '  Afterwards  missa  came 
to  designate  exclusively  the  communion  service. 
In  the  Greek  church  leitourgia  or  litourgia,  ser- 
vice, is  the  precise  equivalent  of  missa. "  (Hist. 
Christ.  Ch.,  vol.  2,  p.  232,  note.) 

But  we  need  not  apjjeal  to  Dr.  Schaff,  as  we 
have  the  original  authorities  before  us.  Thus,  by 
the  Council  of  Carthage,  398:  "That  the  bishop 
forbid  no  one  to  enter  the  church  and  hear  the 
Word  of  God,  be  he  Gentile,  or  heretic,  or  Jew, 
until  the  dismissal  (missam)  of  the  catechumens." 
(Can.  84.)   Augustine  about  the  same  time  makes 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  45 

a  similar  statement  as  I  have  quoted  from 
Dr.  Schaff.  Cassia,  A.  D.  424,  speaks  of  one  who 
was  overheard  while  alone  to  preach  a  sermon, 
and  then  to  ' '  give  out  the  dismissal  of  the  cate- 
chumens as  the  deacon  does. "  (Coenob.  Instit. , 
xi.  15.)  The  Council  of  Valentia,  524:  "That  the 
gospel  be  read  before  the  mass  of  the  catechu- 
mens."" (Can.  1.)  The  Council  of  Lerida  in  the 
same  year  decreed  that  persons  living  in  incest 
should  be  allowed  to  remain  in  the  church  only 
to  the  mass  of  the  catechumens."  (Can.  4.)  The 
formula  of  dismission  in  the  Latin  church  was: 
' '  If  there  be  any  catechumens  here  let  them  go 
out."  (Scudmore's  Notitia  Eucharista,  p.  336, 
ed.  2.) 

The  Apostolic  Constitutions  read:  "But  let 
them  not  be  admitted  to  communion  in  jDrayer; 
and  let  them  depart  after  the  reading  of  the  law, 
and  the  prophets,  and  the  Gospel,  that  by  such 
departui'e  they  may  be  made  better  in  their 
course  of  life,  by  endeavoring  to  meet  every  day 
about  the  public  assemblies,  and  to  be  frequent 
in  prayer,  that  they  may  at  length  be  admitted, 
and  that  those  who  behold  them  may  be  affected, 
and  be  more  secured  by  fearing  to  fall  into  the 
same  condition."    (B.  ii,  c.  xl.) 

Lyman  Coleman,  a  noted  Presbyterian  Archae- 
ologist, says  upon  this  passage:  "It  appears  from 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  that  after  the  doors 
had  been  carefully  closed  and  a  guard  set,  the 


46  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

deacon  made  a  public  proclamation  of  the  differ- 
ent classes  of  persons  who  were  not  permitted  to 
be  present  on  the  occasion.  These  were  the  first 
and  second  classes  of  catechumens,  the  unbe- 
lievers, Jews  and  pagans,  and  reputed  heretics 
and  separatists  of  every  description.  The  peni- 
tents and  inergumens  are  not  here  mentioned, 
but  it  appears  from  other  sources  that  they  were 
not  permitted  to  be  present  at  the  Lord's  table. 
None  indeed  but  believers  in  full  communion 
with  the  church  were  permitted  to  be  present. 
All  such,  originally,  partook  of  the  sacrament." 
(Antiq.  Christ.  Ch.,  pp.  308,  309.) 

The  above  extracts  prove  conclusively  that  the 
unbaptized  were  not  permitted  at  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  most  scholarly  writers  admit  that 
this  was  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church. 

Prof.  Samuel  Cheetham,  Episcopalian,  says: 
"Conditions  of  admission  to  holy  communion. 
Communicants  must  be  baptized  persons,  not 
under  censure.  None  could  be  admitted  to  holy 
communion  but  baptized  persons  lying  under  no 
censure.  The  competency  of  ordinary  members 
of  the  church  would  be  known  as  a  matter  of 
course  to  the  clergy  administering  the  sacra- 
ment. Persons  from  a  distance  were  required 
to  produce  certificates  from  their  own  bishops 
that  they  were  in  the  peace  of  the  church,  before 
they  could  be  admitted  to  holy  communion. 
Some  have  thought  that  the  expression  communio 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  47 

2)ere(jrina  designates  the  state  of  those  strangers 
who,  being  unjDrovided  with  such  letters,  were 
admitted  to  be  present  at  divine  service,  but  not 
to  communicate."  (Diet.  Christ.  Antiq.,  vol.  1, 
p.  417.) 

Bishop  Stillingfieet,  Episcopalian,  says:  Missa 
"was  then  only  taken  for  the  public  service  of 
the  church,  so  called  from  the  dismission  of  the 
people  after  it,  with  an  Ite,  mlsHa  est;  and  from 
the  different  forms  of  Christians,  they  had  two 
several  services,  the  one  called  missa  catechu- 
menorum,  because  at  the  end  of  that  the  catechu- 
mens were  dismissed  froni  the  assembly;  the 
other  missa  fideiium,  at  which  they  received  the 
Lord's  Supper;  which  afterwards,  (the  former 
discipline  of  the  church  decaying),  engrossed 
the  name  missa  to  itself."    (Irenecum,  p.  263.) 

Lord  Chancellor  King,  Episcopalian,  says: 
"Hence  when  other  parts  of  divine  worship  were 
ended,  and  the  celebration  of  the  eucharist  was 
to  begin,  the  catechumens,  penitents,  and  all, 
except  the  communicants,  were  to  depart,  as 
Tertullian  says  thereof :  'Pious  initiations  drive 
away  the  profane. '  These  being  mysteries  which 
were  to  be  kept  secret  and  concealed  from  all, 
except  the  faithful."     (Prim.  Ch.,  p.  243.) 

Dollinger,  Catholic,  says:  "The  doors  of  the 
church  were  now  closed,  and  the  mass  of  the 
faithful,  who  alone  remained  within,  commenced: 
it  consisted  of  three  parts,  the  offertory,  the  con- 


48  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

secration,  and  the  communion."  (Hist.  Christ. 
Ch.,  vol.  2,  p.  310.) 

Kurtz,  Lutheran,  says:  "In  connection  with 
the  arrangements  about  the  catechumens,  public 
worship  was  divided  into  missa  catechumenorum 
and  a  missa  fidelium.  From  the  latter,  all  who 
had  not  been  baptized,  who  were  under  disci- 
pline, or  were  possessed  by  an  unclean  spirit, 
were  excluded."  (Church  Hist.,  vol.  1,  p.  121.) 

Neander,  Lutheran,  says:  "With  reference  to 
these  two  constituent  portions  of  the  church 
assemblies,  the  catechumens  and  baptized  be- 
lievers, the  whole  service  was  divided  into  two 
portions:  one  in  which  the  catechumens  were 
allowed  to  join,  embracing  the  reading  of  the 
Scriptures  and  the  sermon,  the  prevailing  didac- 
tic portion;  and  the  other,  in  which  the  baptized 
alone  could  take  part,  embracing  whatever  was 
designated  to  represent  the  fellowship  of  believ- 
ers— communion,  and  all  the  prayers  of  the 
church  which  preceded  it."  (Hist.  Christ.  Ch., 
vol.  2,  pp.  324,  325.) 

Guericke,  Lutheran,  says :  ' '  The  service  was 
preceded  by  the  call  of  the  deacon,  excluding 
catechumens,  and  all  unbelievers,  heretics,  hypo- 
crites, unreconciled  persons,  etc.,  from  partici- 
pating in  it."     (Manual  of  Ch.  Hist.,  p.  302.) 

Dr.  Schaff,  Presbyterian,  says:  "The  public 
service  was  divided  from  the  middle  of  the  sec- 
ond century  down  to  the  close  of  the  fifth,  into 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  49 

the  worship  of  the  catechumens,  and  the  worship 
of  the  faithful.  The  former  consisted  of  Scrip- 
ture reading,  preaching,  prayer  and  song  and  was 
open  to  the  unbaptized  and  persons  under  pen- 
ance. The  latter  consisted  of  the  holy  commun- 
ion, with  its  liturgical  appendages;  none  but  the 
proper  members  of  the  church  could  attend  it; 
and  before  it  began,  all  catechumens  and  unbe- 
lievers left  the  assembly  at  the  order  of  the  dea- 
con, and  the  doors  were  closed  and  guarded." 
(Hist.  Christ.  Ch.,  vol.  2,  p.  232.) 

Here  we  have  the  unanimous  authority  of  tlie 
Fathers  that  no  one  was  permitted  to  participate 
in  the  Lord's  Supper  who  had  not  been  baptized 
and  was  a  member  of  the  church  in  good  stand- 
ing. The  celebrated  rule  of  Augustine  is  in  point. 
He  says:  "What  the  whole  church,  through  all 
the  world  does  practice,  and  yet  has  not  been 
instituted  in  councils,  but  has  been  always  in 
use,  is  with  veiy  good  reason  supposed  to  have 
been  settled' by  the  authority  of  the  apostles." 
(Wall's  Hist.  Infant  Bapt.,  vol.  1,  p.  85.)  The  con- 
clusions from  this  rule  are  perfect.  No  one  in  all 
antiquity  denies  that  baptism  and  church  mem- 
bership preceded  the  Lord's  Supper. 


50  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  SCHOLARS. 

SCHOLARS  of  every  denomination  testify  to 
our  position  that  baptism  precedes  the 
Lord's  Supper.  There  is  so  much  material  at 
hand,  and  so  many  eminent  men  to  select  from, 
that  I  am  embarrassed  in  having  to  choose  a  few 
witnesses.  These  men  represent  the  scholarship 
of  the  world,  and  are  worthy  of  a  hearing.  I 
present, 

1.  Writers  upon  history.  There  is  not  a  stand- 
ard historian,  who  speaks  upon  the  subject,  that 
does  not  testify  that  baptism  precedes  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Moreover  there  is  not  a  standard  histo- 
rian ivho  gives  any  account  of  open  communion  for 
the  first  sixteen  hundred  years  after  Christ.  But  I 
shall  let  the  historians  sjDeak. 

The  German  writers  will  lead. 

Mosheim  says :  ' '  Neither  those  doing  penance, 
nor  those  not  yet  baptised,  were  allowed  to  be 
present  at  the  celebration  of  this  ordinance." 
(Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  1,  p.  189.) 

Neander  says:  "At  this  celebration,  as  maybe 
easily  concluded,  no  one  could  be  present  who 
was  not  a  member  of  the  Christian  church,  and 
incorporated  into  it  by  the  rite  of  baptism." 
(Church  Hist.,  vol.  1,  p.  271.) 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  SCHOLARS.  51 

Gieseler  says :  ' '  The  eucharist  was  considered 
the  symbol  of  the  intimate  communion  of  the 
church  with  Christ  and  one  another."  (Ch.  Hist., 
vol.  1,  p.  104.) 

Kurtz  says:  "All  unbaptized  persons  were  ex- 
cluded."    (Church  Hist.,  vol.  1,  p.  123.) 

A  brilliant  Frenchman  testifies. 

Pressense  says:  "While  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  thus  celebrated  with  all  simplicity  and  lib- 
erty, it  was,  nevertheless,  with  much  solemnity 
in  the  eyes  of  the  church.  It  summed  up  in  one 
symbol,  chosen  by  the  Lord  himself,  the  whole 
Christian  religion.  To  partake  of  it  was  to  make 
the  most  solemn  profession  of  faith  in  Christ. 
To  receive  it  unworthily  was  not  only  to  despise 
the  Lord's  body  in  the  symbol  which  spiritually 
set  it  forth,  but  also  to  make  the  church  partaker 
in  the  sin.  Thus  serious  and  severe  discipline 
was  appointed  not  merely  to  prevent  the  prof- 
anation of  the  Lord's  Sujiper,  but  also  to  repress 
all  kinds  of  irregularities."  (Early  Years  of 
Christianity,  p.  379.) 

Here  is  a  voice  from  Switzerland. 

Frederick  Spanheim  says:  "The  oblation  of 
the  eucharistical  bread  and  wine  by  the  people 
followed;  the  consecration  of  it  by  prayer,  and 
the  distribution  to  the  faithful  and  baptized  in 
remembrance  of  the  death  of  Christ."  (EccL 
Annals,  p.  177.) 

I  put  an  infidel  on  the  stand. 


52  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Gibbon  says:  "One  circumstance  maybe  ob- 
served, in  which  the  modern  churches  have  ma- 
terially departed  from  the  ancient  custom.  The 
sacrament  of  baptism  (even  when  it  is  adminis- 
tered to  infants)  was  immediately  followed  by 
confirmation  and  the  holy  communion. "  (Decline 
and  Pall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  vol.  2,  p.  271.) 

Old  England  testifies. 

Milman  says:  "Baptism,  or  the  initiation  into 
the  Christian  community,  was  a  solemn  ceremo- 
nial, requiring  previous  examination  and  proba- 
tion. The  governing  power  would  possess  and 
exercise  the  authority  to  admit  into  the  com 
munity.  They  would  perform,  or,  at  all  events, 
superintend  the  initiatory  rite  of  baptism.  The 
other  distinctive  rite  of  Christianity,  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Lord's  Supper,  would  require  a 
more  active  interference  and  co-operation  on  the 
part  of  those  who  presided  over  the  community." 
(History  Christ.,  p.  198.) 

J.  G.  Robertson  says:  "None  were  admitted 
but  such  as  were  baptized  and  in  full  communion 
with  the  church."  (Hist.  Christ.  Ch.,  vol.  1, 
p.  168.) 

Waddington  says:  "The  sacraments  of  the 
primitive  church  were  two — baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper."     (Hist.  Ch.,  p.  46.) 

Homersham  Cox  says:  "Prom  a  subsequent 
passage  it  appears  that  immediately  after  bap- 
tism, the  convert  was  brought  into  the  congre- 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  SCHOLARS.  53 

gation,  and  partook  of  the  eucharist.''  (First 
Cent  Christ.,  p.  278.) 

The  scholarship  of  America  joms  all  the  rest. 

Professor  Fisher,  Congregationalist,  says: 
"Toward  the  close  of  the  second  century  we 
tind  it  to  be  the  custom  to  exclude  non-communi- 
cants from  being  present  at  the  Lord's  Supper. 
After  the  preliminary  services,  at  the  close  of 
the  addresses  of  the  bishop  and  presbyters,  the 
unbaptized  were  dismissed.  From  the  Latin 
word  signifying  dismissal  (missa)  the  word  mass 
is  derived."'  (Hist.  Christ.  Ch.,  p.  66.) 

Gregory  and  Ruter,  Methodists,  say:  "With 
respect  to  the  few  and  simple  rites  instituted  by 
Christ,  it  appears,  that  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  administered,  by  the  first 
Christians,  whenever  they  assembled  for  the  pur- 
poses of  social  worship;  and  so  far  from  being 
confined  to  those  who  had  made  the  greatest 
l)rogress  in  religious  attainments,  it  was  equally 
participated  in  by  the  apostle  of  Christ  and  the 
meanest  member  of  the  church.  The  initiatory 
rite  of  baptism  was  usually  performed,  by  im- 
mersing the  whole  body  in  the  baptismal  font, 
and  in  the  earlier  periods  of  Christianity  was 
permitted  to  all  who  acknowledged  the  truths  of 
the  Gospel,  and  promised  conformity  to  its  laws. 
The  introduction  of  unworthy  and  disorderly 
persons  into  the  church,  from  easiness  of  admis- 
sion, naturally  narrowed  the  terms  of  commun- 


54  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

ion,  and  baptism  was  afterwards  confined  to 
those  who  had  been  previously  instructed  in 
religious  knowledge,  and  proved  the  sincerity  of 
their  professions  by  the  regularity  of  their  lives. 
The  probationers  for  admission  into  the  society 
of  Christians  took  the  humble  name  of  Catechu 
mens,  while  those  who  were  already  consecrated 
by  baptism  were  distinguished  by  the  superior 
title  of  Believers."    (Church  Hist.,  pp.  33,  34.) 

Dr.  Schaff,  Presbyterian,  says:  "The  two  sac- 
raments of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
antetypes  of  circumcision  and  the  passover  under 
the  Old  Testament,  were  instituted  by  Christ  as 
efficatious  signs,  pledges,  and  means  of  the  grd,ce 
of  the  new  covenant.  They  are  related  to  each 
other  as  regeneration  and  sanctification,-  or  as 
the  beginning  and  growth  of  the  Christian  life." 
(Hist.  Christ.  Ch.,  vol.  1,  p.  465.) 

Surely  the  Baptists  must  be  right  when  all  his- 
tory gives  such  a  willing  voice  to  their  position. 

2.  Writers  upon  the  church.  These  writers 
have  studied  the  church  and  her  ordinances  from 
every  conceivable  standpoint,  and  yet,  wonder- 
ful to  say,  on  this  point  they  are  unanimous. 

Litton,  Episcopalian,  says:  "To  his  church, 
represented  in  the  apostles,  he  delivered  the  sac- 
raments. Believers  are  to  be  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  bap- 
tized Christians  are  to  eat  the  bread  and  drink 
the  cup,  and  thus  to  feed  spiritually  upon  his 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  SCHOLARS.  55 

body  and  blood.  These  simple  directions  com- 
prise all  of  the  particulars  of  the  original  insti- 
tution." (The  Church  of  Christ,  p.  156.) 

Jacob,  Episcopalian,  says:  The  baptized  per- 
son ' '  was  at  once  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
which  was  commonly  administered  to  newly  bap- 
tized infants,  as  well  as  to  those  of  riper  years." 
(Eccl.  Pol.  of  New  Test.,  p.  279.) 

Bishop  Kaye,  Episcopalian,  says:  "Christ him- 
self instituted  two  rites — the  one  to  be  the  out- 
ward mode  of  initiation — the  other  the  outward 
mark  of  communion  with  it."  (Exter.  Govern, 
and  Discipline  of  the  Church,  p.  30.) 

Dr.  Killen,  Presbyterian,  says:  "As  baptism 
was  designed  to  supercede  the  Jewish  circum- 
cision, the  Lord's  Supjier  was  intended  to  occupy 
the  place  of  the  Jewish  Passover.  The  Paschal 
lamb  could  be  sacrificed  nowhere  except  in  the 
Temple  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  passover  was  kept 
only  once  a  year;  but  the  eucharist  could  be  dis- 
pensed wherever  a  Christian  congregation  was 
collected."     (The  Ancient  Ch.,  p.  218.) 

Bannerman,  Presbyterian,  says:  "Baptism,  as 
commonly  administered,  to  entrants  into  the 
church,  takes  infeftment,  so  to  speak,  of  our 
flesh  when  we  enter  into  covenant  with  Christ, 
that  not  even  the  lower  part  of  our  being  may  be 
left  without  the  attestation  that  he  has  redeemed 
it.  The  Lord's  Supper,  as  administered  from  time 
to  time  to  those  who  have  been  admitted  into  the 


56  CLOSE  COMMUNION 

church  before,  renews  this  infeftment  at  inter- 
vals, and  attests  that  the  covenant  by  which  we 
are  Christ's  still  holds  good  both  for  the  body 
and  the  spirit  which  He  has  ransomed  in  Him- 
self."    (The  Church  of  Christ,  vol.  2,  p.  129.) 

3.  Writers  on  Systematic  Theology  and  Dog- 
matics. These  men  have  given  their  lives  to  the 
direct  study  of  the  Scriptures,  and  their  testi- 
mony is  important. 

Turretin,  Presbyterian,  says:  "It  is  one  thing 
to  have  a  right  to  these  external  ordinances  of 
the  church,  which  belong  to  a  profession;  it  is 
another  thing  to  be  interested  in  the  internal 
blessings  of  faith.  Unbaptized  believers  have 
actually  a  right  to  these,  because  they  are  al- 
ready partakers  of  Christ  and  his  benefits;  though 
they  have  not  yet  a  right  to  those,  except  in  ob- 
serving the  appointed  order  of  baptism."  (Insti- 
tut.  Theol.,  Tom  iii,  Loc.  xviii.  Quaes,  iv,  §  10, 
p.  22.) 

Mastricht  says:  "As  no  uncircumcised  male 
was  admitted  to  the  typical  supper,  that  is  the 
passover;  so,  under  the  New  Testament,  no  un- 
baptized person  is  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table." 
(Theol.,  lib.  vii,  cap.  v,  §  29.) 

Pictetus,  Presbyterian,  says :  ' '  The  Supper  of 
our  Lord  ought  not  to  be  administered  to  persons 
that  are  unbaptized:  for  before  baptism,  men  are 
not  considered  as  members  of  the  visible  church." 
(Theolog.  Christiana,  pp.  959,  960.) 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  SCHOLARS.  57 

Marckius  says:  "The  dying  and  the  unbap- 
tized,  are  not  to  be  admitted  to  communion." 
(Compend.  Theolog.  Christ.,  p.  604.) 

Witsius  says:  "For  as  two  things  are  required 
to  complete  our  happiness:  first,  our  being  ab- 
solved from  our  sins,  and  washed  from  our  pol- 
lution; that  we  may  be  regenerated  by  the  com- 
munication of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  to  a  new  life 
of  grace,  that  is  sustained,  strengthened  and  in- 
creased therein,  until  we  be  promoted  to  the  life 
of  glory  both  these  are  sufficiently  confirmed  to 
us  by  these  two  sacraments.  Our  first  engraft- 
ing into  Christ,  and  our  regeneration  by  the 
Spirit,  are  set  forth  by  baptism;  and  the  nourish- 
ment of  our  spiritual  life  by  the  holy  supper." 
(Econ.  Gov.,  vol.  2,  p.  421.) 

Dr.  Dabney,  Southern  Presbyterian,  says: 
' '  That  the  sacrament  is  to  be  given  only  to  cred- 
ible i^rofessors,  does  not  indeed  follow  necessa- 
rily from  the  fact  that  it  symbolizes  saving  grace; 
for  baptism  does  this;  but  from  the  express  limi- 
tation of  Paul,  and  from  the  different  graces 
symbolized.  Baptism  symbolizes  those  graces 
which  initiate  the  Christian  life:  the  Supper, 
those  also  which  continue  it."'  (Sys.  Polem. 
TheoL,  pp.  803,  804.) 

Dr.  McDowell,  Presbyterian,  says :  ' '  The  quali- 
fications to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  sight 
of  the  church  ought  to  be  visible  piety.  For  the 
officers  in  the  church,  cannot  search  the  heart; 


58  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

but  they  ought  to  look  for  evidence  of  that  which 
God  requires,  which  has  been  shown  to  be  real 
piety.  And  since  they  have  had  committed  to 
them  by  Christ,  the  keys  of  the  visible  kingdom, 
with  power  to  open  and  shut  it,  it  becomes  them 
to  examine  persons  applying  to  be  received  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  to  enable  them  to  form  a 
judgment  whether  they  possess  or  not  the  requi- 
site qualifications."    (Theol.,  vol.  2,  pp.  511,  512.) 

Dr.  Martensen,  bishop  in  Denmark,  says:  "Bap- 
tism is  the  setting  up  of  the  new  covenant;  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  its  renewal.  By  baptism  a  man 
is  incorporated  into  the  new  kingdom,  and  the 
possibility  of,  the  necessary  requirements  for,  the 
new  personality  are  given  therein;  by  means  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  this  new  personality  is  brought 
to  perfection.  *  *  *  The  Lord's  Supper  as  a 
church  ordinance,  must  be  looked  upon  as  an  act 
of  confession,  appointed  by  the  Lord  to  refresh 
our  remembrance  of  him."  (Christ.  Dogmat., 
p.  432.) 

4.  Writers  on  Christian  Antiquities.  Writers 
on  this  subject  are  supposed  to  weigh  all  kinds 
of  testimony,  and  had  there  been  any  deviation 
on  this  subject  they  would  undoubtedly  have 
mentioned  it. 

Riddle,  Episcopalian,  says:  "In  the  primitive 
church,  the  eucharist  was  administered  immedi- 
ately after  baptism  to  persons  newly  admitted 
into  the  church  by  that  rite;  who,  it  is  to  be  re- 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  SCHOT^ARS.  59 

membered,  wore  adults,  and  had  gone  through  a 
preparatory  course  of  instruction."  "According 
to  the  original  laws  and  customs  of  the  church, 
the  communicants  consisted  of  all  persons  who 
had  been  admitted  as  members  of  the  church  by 
baptism."     (Christ.  Antiq.,  p.  572.) 

Coleman,  Presbyterian,  says :  '  'Agreeably  to  all 
the  laws  and  customs  of  the  church,  baptism  con- 
stituted membership  with  the  church.  All  bap- 
tized persons  were  legitimately  numbered  among 
the  communicants,  as  members  of  the  church. 
Accordingly  the  sacrament  immediately  followed 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  that  the  members  thus 
received  might  come  at  once  into  the  enjoyment 
of  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Christian  fel- 
lowship."    (Antiq.  Christ.  Ch.,  pp.  309,  310.) 

Guericke  says :  '  'At  a  very  early  date  it  was 
the  custom,  immediately  after  the  act  of  bap- 
tism," to  admit  the  candidate  "with  the  rest  of 
the  church  to  the  Holy  Communion."  (Manual 
Antiq.  Ch.,  pp.  233,  236.) 

5.  Miscellaneous  writers. 

Ravenellius  says:  "Baptism  ought  to  precede; 
nor  is  the  holy  Supper  to  be  administered  to  any, 
except  they  be  baptized."  (Bibliotheca  Sacra, 
tom.  i,  p.  301.) 

Zanchius  says:  "We  believe  that  baptism,  as 
a  sacrament  appointed  by  Christ,  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  church."  (Opera,  tom.  viii, 
p.  416.) 


60  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Hornbekius  says:  "No  one  is  admitted  to  the 
sacred  supper  unless  he  is  baptized."  (Socin. 
Confut.,  torn,  ii,  p.  416.) 

Dr.  Manton  says:  "Before  the  church,  none 
but  baptized  persons  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's 
table."     (Supplem.  Morn.  Exercis.,  p.  199.) 

Dr.  Green,  Presbyterian,  says:  "It  appears 
from  several  passages  of  the  New  Testament, 
that  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  have  succeeded  to  circumcision  and 
the  passover  in  the  Jewish. "  (Lect.  Shorter  Cat. , 
vol.  2,  p.  358.) 

Dr.  Stier  says:  "Yet  it  must  be  maintained, 
with  Luther,  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  also 
imparted  in  the  Gospel,  as  here,  through  the 
word;  we  may  say,  further,  that  the  first  sacra- 
ment, baptism,  had  already  communicated  for- 
giveness to  the  participants  of  the  Supper." 
(Words  of  Lord  Jesus,  vol.  7,  p.  135.) 

Surely  the  Baptists  must  be  right  on  the  Lord's 
Sup23er  when  their  position  is  thus  heartily  en- 
dorsed by  the  scholarship  of  the  world.  From 
whatever  standpoint  we  view  the  subject  the 
conclusion  is  the  same.  All  scholars  concede 
that  baptism  must  precede  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  man,  therefore,  who  rants  about  Baptist 
"close  communion"  must  be  ignorant  of  the 
scholarship  of  the  world,  or  hopelessly  blinded 
by  prejudice. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OP'  CREEDS,  ETC.  61 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  CREEDS,  CONFESSIONS,  ETC. 

I  HAVE  put  myself  to  much  trouble  to  look 
through  the  creeds  of  various  sects,  Roman 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  and  they  all  lay  down 
the  order  claimed  by  the  Baptists.  This  is  im- 
portant testimony.  It  shows  that  the  whole 
Christian  world  is  a  unit  on  this  important  point. 
The  order  we  claim,  and  the  creeds  admit,  is  that 
baptism  precedes  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  Roman  Catholics  are  very  clear  on  this 
point.  The  Council  of  Trent,  1547,  has:  'Bap- 
tism, Confirmation,  the  Eucharist. "  (De  Sacra- 
mentis  in  Genere.,  can.  1.)  The  Profession  of 
the  Tridentine  Faith,  1564,  has  the  same.  (See 
Bulls  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  Injunctum  Nobis,  No- 
vember 13th,  1564.) 

The  Orthodox  Eastern,  or  Greek  Church,  has: 
"Baptism,  Unction  with  Chrism,  Communion." 
(Queas.  xcviii.  Longer  Cat.  Eastern  Church. ) 

The  Old  Catholic  Church  has:  "Baptism  and 
the  eucharist."  (Fourteen  Theses  Old  Catholic 
Union,  Bonn,  Art.  IX.) 

The  First  Helvetic  Confession,  A.  D.  1536, 
Swiss  Divines,  Bullinger  and  others,  Art.  XXI: 
"Baptism  and  the  eucharist." 


62  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

The  Second  Helvetic  Confession,  1566:  "Bap- 
tism and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord."  (Art.  XIX.) 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  1563,  question  68: 
' '  How  many  sacraments  has  Christ  appointed  in 
the  New  Testament?  Answer,  Two:  holy  bap- 
tism and  the  holy  supper." 

The  Belgic  Confession,  1561:  "Moreover,  we 
are  satisfied  with  the  number  of  sacraments 
which  Christ  our  Lord  hath  instituted,  which  are 
two  only,  namely,  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism, 
and  the  Holy  Supper  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
(Art.  XXIII.) 

The  Scotch  Confession  of  Faith,  1560:  "As  the 
Father  is  under  the  law,  besides  the  veritie  of 
the  Sacrifices,  had  twa  chiefe  Sacraments,  to  wit. 
Circumcision  and  the  Passover,  the  despisers 
and  contemners  whereof  were  not  reputed  for 
God's  people:  sa  do  we  acknowledge  and  con- 
fesse  that  w^e  now  in  the  time  of  the  Evangell 
have  twa  chiefe  Sacraments,  onelie  instituted  be 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  commanded  to  be  used  of  all 
they  that  will  be  reputed  members  of  this  body, 
to  wit,  Baptisme  and  the  Supper  or  Table  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  called  the  Communion  of  his  body 
andhisblude."     (Art.  XXL) 

The  Thirty-nine  Ai  tides  of  the  Church  of 
England,  1563,  1571,  1801:  "There  are  two  sac- 
raments ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Gos- 
pel, that  is  to  say,  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of 
the  Lord.     (Art.  XXV.) 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  CREEDS,  ETC.      63 

The  Irish  articles  of  religion,  1615:  "There  be 
two  sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord  in 
the  Gospel;  that  is  to  say:  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper."    (Sect.  85.) 

The  Westminster  Confession,  1647:  "There  be 
only  two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  our  Lord 
in  the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  Baptism  and  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord:  neither  of  which  may  be 
dispensed  by  any  but  by  a  minister  of  the  Word 
lawfully  ordained."     (Art.  XXVII.) 

The  Methodist,  1781:  "There  are  two  sacra- 
ments ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel; 
that  is  to  say.  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord."     (Art.  XVI.) 

Our  position  must  be  a  very  strong  one  when 
all  of  the  Creeds  of  Christendom  endorse  it.  We 
hold  in  common  with  all  others  that  baptism 
precedes  the  Lord's  Supper. 


64  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  TERMS  OF  COMMUNION   IN   THE  EPISCOPAL 

CHURCH.      ARE  THE  EPISCOPALIANS  CLOSE 

COMMUNIONISTS  ? 

WE  can  undoubtedly  answer  this  question  in 
the  affirmative.  The  Ej)iscopalians  are 
quite  strict  in  their  requirements.    We  notice: 

1.  The  Episcopalians  declare  that  baptism  and 
church  membership  precede  communion. 

Prof.  Cheetham,  Professor  of  Pastoral  Theol- 
ogy in  King's  College,  London,  says:  "None 
could  be  admitted  to  holy  communion  but  bap- 
tized persons  lying  under  no  censure."  (Diet. 
Antiq.,  vol.  1,  p.  417.) 

The  Episcopal  Recorder  says :  ' '  The  close  com- 
munion of  the  Baptist  churches  is  but  the  neces- 
sary sequence  of  the  fundamental  idea  out  of 
which  their  existence  has  grown.  No  Christian 
church  would  willingly  receive  to  its  commun- 
ion even  the  humblest  and  truest  believer  in 
Christ  who  had  not  been  baptized.  With  Bap- 
tists, immersion  only  is  baptism,  and  they  there- 
fore of  necessity  exclude  from  the  Lord's  table 
all  who  have  not  been  immersed.  It  is  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  system — the  legitimate  carrying 
out  of  the  creed."' 


THE  EPISCOPALIANS.  65 

Dr.  Wall  says :  ■ '  For  no  church  ever  gave  the 
commuaion  to  any  persons  before  they  were  bap- 
tized. *  *  *  Since  among  all  of  the  absurdities 
that  ever  were  hold,  none  ever  maintained  that, 
an}"^  person  should  partake  of  the  communion 
before  he  was  baptized."  (Wall's  Hist.  Infant 
Bapt.,  vol.  1,  pp.  032,  638.) 

Lord  Chancellor  King  says:  "As  for  the  per- 
sons communicating,  they  were  not  indifferently 
all  that  professed  the  Christian  faith,  as  Origin 
writes :  '  It  doth  not  belong  to  every  one  to  eat  of 
the  bread,  and  to  drink  of  this  cup.'  But  they 
were  only  such  as  were  in  the  number  of  the 
faithful,  '  such  as  were  baptized,  and  received 
both  the  credentials  and  practices  of  Christian- 
ity.' That  is,  who  believe  the  articles  of  the 
Christian  faith,  and  led  a  holy  and  pious  life. 
Such  as  these,  and  none  else,  were  permitted  to 
communicate.  Now  since  none  but  the  faithful 
were  admitted,  it  follows  that  the  catechumens 
and  the  penitents  were  excluded;  the  catechu- 
mens, because  they  were  not  yet  baptized,  for 
baptism  alw^ays  preceded  the  Lord's  Supper." 
(Prim.  Ch.,  pp.  242,  243.) 

Bingham  says:  "Now  the  obligation  which 
every  man  laid  upon  himself  in  baptism,  as  we 
have  shown  in  a  former  book,  was  the  profession 
and  actual  performance  of  three  things:  1.  Re- 
pentance, or  a  renunciation  of  all  former  sin,  to- 
gether with  the  author  of  it,  the  devil.    2.  Faith, 


66  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

or  belief  of  the  several  articles  of  the  Christian 
institution  or  mystery  of  godliness.  3.  A  holy 
and  constant  obedience  paid  to  the  laws  of  this 
holy  religion.  In  the  performance  of  which 
sincerely  and  without  dissimulation,  every  man 
was  supposed  to  be  truly  qualified  for  baptism; 
and  what  qualified  him  for  baptism,  also  qualified 
him  for  the  communion;  of  which  there  is  this 
certain  evidence,  that  as  soon  as  any  man  was 
baptized,  he  was  immediately  communicated; 
which  could  not  regularly  have  been  done,  but 
upon  presumption,  that  he  that  was  duly  quali- 
fied for  baptism  was  qualified  for  communion." 
(Origines  EccL,  vol.  2,  p.  835.) 

Dr.  Cave  says:  "The  communicants  in  the 
primitive  church  were  those  that  embraced  the 
doctrine  of  the  gospel,  and  had  been  baptized 
into  the  faith  of  Christ.  For  looking  upon  the 
Lord's  Supper  as  the  highest  and  most  solemn 
act  of  religion,  they  thought  they  could  never 
take  care  enough  in  the  dispensing  of  it."  (Prim. 
Christ.,  P.  1,  c.  xi,  p.  333.) 

That  the  Baptists  are  consistent  in  their  terms 
of  communion  these  authors  frankly  admit. 

2.  The  Episcopalians  have  put  around  the 
Lord's  Table  the  most  stringent  rules. 

(1).  It  is  required  by  Episcopalians  that  the 
minister  who  administers  the  communion  must 
be  Episcopally  ordained.  The  XXXIII  Article 
reads:  "It  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  take 


THE  EPISCOPALIANS.  67 

upon  him  the  office  of  public  preaching,  or  min- 
istering the  sacraments  in  the  congregation,  be- 
fore he  be  lawfully  called  and  sent  to  execute 
the  same:  and  these  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully 
called  and  sent,  which  be  chosen  and  called  to 
this  work  by  men  who  have  public  authority 
given  unto  them  in  the  congregation  to  call  and 
send  ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard." 

What  is  meant  by  "lawful  authority"?  Rev. 
Henry  Gary  says:  "The  Church  of  England  ever 
upheld  the  necessity  of  an  Apostolic  succession, 
and  Episcopal  ordination.  For,  to  use  the  ex- 
pressions introductory  to  ordination  service,  '  it 
is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  the 
Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that  from 
the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been  these  orders 
of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons,  which  officers  were  evermore  had 
in  such  reverend  estimation,  that  no  man  might 
presume  to  execute  any  of  them,  except  he  were 
first  called,  tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have 
such  qualities  as  are  requisite  for  the  same;  and 
also  by  public  prayer  with  imposition  of  hands 
by  lawful  authority.  And  therefore,  to  the  in- 
tent that  these  orders  may  be  continued,  and 
reverently  used  and  esteemed,  in  the  United 
Church  of  England  and  Ireland,  and  no  man  shall 
be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop, 
Priest  or  Deacon,  in  the  United  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  Ireland,  or  suffered  to  execute  any  of 


68  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  ex- 
amined, and  admitted  thereunto,  according  to  the 
form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had  formal 
Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."  (Test. 
Fathers,  pp.  275,  276.) 

That  is  plain  enough.  According  to  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  no  Baptist,  Methodist,  Presbyte- 
rian, or  other  schismatic  has  a  right  to  adminis- 
ter the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Episcopalian  clergy- 
man who  would  participate  in  an  open  commun- 
ion ceremony  with  a  Methodist  or  Presbyterian 
congregation  would  violate  the  fundamental  law 
of  the  Episcopal  church. 

(2.)  Schismatics,  that  is  to  say  Baptists,  Meth- 
odists or  Presbyterians,  are  to  be  excluded  from 
the  Episcopal  table.  Charles  Wheatly,  and  there 
is  no  higher  authority  on  the  Prayer  Book,  says: 
"But  besides  persons  excommunicated,  and 
those  above  mentioned  (disorderly  and  unbap- 
tized),  there  are  other  persons,  by  the  laws  of 
our  church,  disabled  from  communicating:  such 
are  of  course,  all  schismatics,  to  whom  no  min- 
ister, when  he  celebrates  the  communion,  is  wit- 
tingly to  administer  the  same,  under  pain  of  sus- 
pension." (Wheatly  on  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
p.  261.) 

There  is  no  doubt  about  that  being  close  com- 
munion. 

(3.)  The  Episcopalians  demand  that  a  man 
shall  be  confirmed,  or  desirous  of  being  con- 


THE  EPISCOPALIANS.  69 

firmed,  before  he  can  sit  down  to  their  commun- 
ion. At  the  close  of  the  rubric  on  Confirmation 
the  Prayer  Book  says :  '  'And  there  shall  none  be 
admitted  to  the  Holy  Communion,  until  such  a 
time  as  he  be  confirmed,  or  be  ready  and  desirous 
to  be  confirmed." 

Wake,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  says:  ''Is  there 
anything  further  required  of  those  who  come  to 
the  Lord's  Supper?  A.  Yes,  there  is;  that  they 
may  first  be  confirmed  by  the  bishop."  (The 
Princ.  Christ.  Relig.  Explained,  j).  374.) 

BishopWilliams,  Connecticut,  says:  "No mem- 
ber of  any  religious  society,  outside  of  the 
church,  can  receive  her  holy  communion  without 
a  violation  of  a  fundamental  law  of  the  liturgy; 
and  no  clergyman  can  administer  it  to  such  a 
person  without  a  violation  of  his  ordination  vows. 
The  rubric  commands  that  no  person  shall  be 
admitted  to  the  holy  communion  until  they  have 
been,  or  are  ready  to  be  confirmed." 

Dr.  W.  A.  Snively  says:  Confirmation  "has 
constant  reference  to  the  baptismal  vow,  to  the 
promises  then  made,  and  the  system  of  instruc- 
tion then  prescribed ;  and  it  looks  forward  to  the 
admission  of  the  candidate  to  his  full  privilege, 
as  a  member  of  Christ,  in  the  Holy  Communion." 
(Parish  Lect.  on  Book  of  Prayer,  p,  214.) 

Charles  Wheatly  says:  "  By  a  rubric  at  the  end 
of  the  order  of  Confirmation,  none  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Holy  Communion,  until  such  a  time 


70  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

as  he  be  confirmed,  or  be  ready  and  desirous  to 
be  confirmed.  The  like  provision  is  made  by  our 
provincial  Constitutions,  which  allow  none  to 
communicate  (unless  at  the  point  of  death),  but 
such  as  are  confirmed,  or  at  least  have  a  reason- 
able impediment  for  not  being  confirmed;  and  the 
Glossary  allows  no  impediment  to  be  reasonable, 
but  the  want  of  a  bishop  near  the  place. "  (Book 
Com.  Prayer,  p.  262.) 

These  rules  are  such  that  no  Baptist,  Method- 
ist, Presbyterian,  could  sit  down  at  the  Episco- 
pal table,  as  they  are  not  ready  nor  desirous  of 
being  confirmed. 

(4.)  Episcopalians  will  not  even  commune  with 
transient  Episcopalians.  Wheatley  says:  "All 
strangers  from  other  parishes;  the  minister  is  by 
the  canons  required  to  forbid  and  to  remit  such 
home  to  their  own  parish  churches  and  minis- 
ters, there  to  receive  the  Communion  with  the 
rest  of  their  neighbors."  (Book  Com.  Prayer, 
p.  262.) 

(5.)  The  Episcopal  rules  require  that  no  evil 
liver  shall  be  permitted  to  commune  at  the  Lord's 
table.  The  English  Prayer  Book  reads:  "If 
among  those  who  come  to  be  partakers  of  the 
Holy  Communion,  the  minister  shall  know  any  to 
be  open  and  notorious  evil  livers,  or  to  have  done 
any  wrong  to  his  neighbors  by  word  or  deed,  so 
that  the  Congregation  be  thereby  offended;  he 
shall  advertize  him,  that  he  presume  not  to  come 


THE  EPISCOPALIANS.  71 

to  the  Lord's  table,  until  he  have  openly  declared 
himself  to  have  truly  repented  and  amended  his 
former  evil  life,  that  the  Congregation  may 
thereby  be  satisfied;  and  that  he  hath  recom- 
pensed the  parties  to  whom  he  hath  done  wrong; 
or  at  least  declared  himself  to  be  in  full  purpose 
to  do  so,  as  soon  as  he  conveniently  may. " 

This  rubric  has  been  omitted  from  the  liturgy 
of  the  American  church,  but  is  regarded  as  bind- 
ing; in  some  of  the  States  a  canon  to  this  effect 
is  enacted  and  in  full  force.  T.  C.  Brownwell, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  Connecticut,  says:  "This 
Rubric  has  been  omitted  by  our  American  Re- 
visers of  the  Liturgy;  probably  from  the  incon- 
venience of  conveying  the  notice  in  our  scattered 
Congregations.  But  it  is  desirable  that  there 
should  be  a  general  direction,  requiring  all  per- 
sons to  advertize  the  minister  of  their  wishes,  be- 
fore presenting  themselves  to  the  Holy  Table  for 
the  first  time.  This  is  probably  now  the  general 
usage  of  the  Church.  There  is  also  a  canon  to 
this  effect  in  the  Diocese  of  Connecticut,  and 
there  may  perhaps  be  similar  Canons  in  some  of 
the  other  Dioceses.  But  the  general  regulations 
of  the  Church  are  paramount  to  any  local  injunc- 
tions."    (Book  of  Com.  Prayer,  p.  360.) 

(6. )  Episcopalians  permit  no  person  Avho  holds 
malice  to  come  to  their  table.  In  the  Adminis- 
tration of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Prayer  Book 
says:  "The  same  order  shall  the  minister  use 


72  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

with  those,  betwixt  whom  he  perceiveth  malice 
and  hatred  to  reign;  not  suffering  them  to  be 
partakers  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  until  he  know 
them  to  be  reconciled." 

(7.)  Episcopalians  practice  close  communion 
in  the  burial  of  the  dead.  Under  that  head  the 
Prayer  Book  says:  "  Here  it  is  to  be  noted,  that 
the  office  ensuing  is  not  to  be  used  for  any  un- 
baptized  adults,  any  who  die  excommunicated,  or 
who  have  laid  violent  hands  upon  themselves." 

(8.)  In  order  to  commune  with  the  Episco- 
palians you  must  endorse  the  whole  book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  The  Constitutions  and  Canons, 
No.  4,  say:  "Whosoever  shall  hereafter  affirm, 
that  the  form  of  God's  Worship  contained  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  administration  of 
the  Sacraments,  containeth  anything  in  it  that  is 
repugnant  to  the  Scriptures,  let  him  be  excom- 
municated ipso  facto,  and  not  restored  but  by  the 
bishop  of  the  place,  or  archbishop,  after  his  re- 
pentance and  public  revocation  of  such  wicked 
errors." 

In  corroboration  of  all  that  I  have  said,  I  give 
the  testimony  of  two  leading  bishops  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church.  I  asked  the  following  questions: 
' '  Does  the  Episcopal  Church  require  a  godly  life 
as  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper?  Does  it 
require  Baptism?  Does  it  require  Confirmation? 
Does  it  require  Church  membership?  Any  other 
prerequisites?  "  The  answer  was  plain  and  clear. 


THE  EPISCOPALIANS.  73 

Bishop  Hugh  Miller  Thompson,  LL.  D. ,  of  Mis- 
sissippi, says: 

Battle  Hill,  Jackson,  Miss.,  May  7,  18i»2. 
Mk.  J.  T.  Christian: 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  enquiries  of  May 
4th,  just  come  to  my  hands,  I  beg  to  say:  To 
Question  1st:  Decidedly  yes — "a  sober,  right- 
eous, and  godly  life."  To  Question  2nd:  Yes, 
invariably.  To  Question  3rd :  Not  always.  Rea- 
sons and  explanations  in  the  Confirmation  ritual. 
To  Question  4th:  Yes.  Baptism  makes  one  a 
member  of  the  Church.  A  man  communicates 
because  he  is  a  member  of  the  Household.  It  is 
a  Family  Table. 

No  other  requirements  save,  Faith  and  Repent- 
ance and  Prayerful  resolutions  to  live  a  sober, 
righteous  and  godly  life.  I  answer  your  ques- 
tions in  order,  supposing  you  have  retained  a 
copy. 

The  Prayer  Book  is  our  best  explanation,  how- 
ever. Very  truly  yours, 

Hugh  Miller  Thompson. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  T.  U.  Dudley,  S.  T.  D.,  Bishop 
of  Kentucky,  says: 

Louisville,  Ky.,  716  Third  St.,  May  16,  1892. 
Mr.  J.  T.  Christian,  Jackson,  Miss. 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  write  hurriedly  as  I  am  obliged 
to  do  in  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  13th. 

1.  The  Rubric  in  the  Communion  office  of  the 


74  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Prayer  Book  says :  "If  among  those  who  come 
to  be  partakers  of  the  communion  the  minister 
shall  know  any  to  be  open  and  notorious  evil 
livers,  or  to  have  done  any  wrong  to  his  neigh- 
bors by  word  or  deed,  so  that  the  congregation 
be  thereby  offended :  he  shall  advertize  him,  that 
he  presume  not  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table,  un- 
til he  have  openly  declared  himself  to  have  truly 
repented  and  amended  his  former  evil  life,  that 
the  congregation  may  thereby  be  satisfied;  and 
that  he  hath  recompensed  the  parties  to  whom 
he  hath  done  wrong:  or  at  least  declare  himself 
to  be  in  full  purpose  so  to  do  as  soon  as  he  con- 
veniently may." 

2.  We  do  require  baptism, 

3.  That  a  person  may  become  a  regular  com- 
municant of  the  church  confirmation  is  required. 

4.  All  baptized  persons  are  members  of  the 
church,  and  so  of  course  as  no  unbaptized  per- 
son may  receive  the  Holy  Communion,  only 
church  members  may  do  so. 

I  am  truly  yours, 
T.  U.  Dudley,  Bishop  of  Kentucky. 

Instead  of  being  one  of  open  communion,  the 
history  of  the  Episcopal  Church  is  one  of  blood- 
shed and  persecution.  Henry  VIII.  was  scarcely 
established  as  head  of  the  Episcopal  Church  till 
he  began  to  persecute  the  Baptists.  In  1535, 
according  to  the  old  Chronicler  Stow :  ' '  On  the 


THE  EPISCOPALIANS.  "  75 

25th  day  of  May,  in  St.  Paul's  Church,  London, 
nineteen  men  and  six  women,  born  in  Holland, 
who  held  that  the  children  of  infidel  parents 
might  be  saved;  that  the  baptism  of  infants  is  of 
none  effect;  that  the  elements,  the  bread  and  the 
wine,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  remain  unchanged, 
and  are  bread  and  wine  still,  were  ordered  to  be 
examined  and  their  views  condemned.  Fourteen 
of  the  twenty-five  were  condemned  to  suffer 
death,  one  man  and  one  woman  were  condemned 
to  be  burned  in  Smithfield,  and  the  others  were 
sent  to  other  towns  to  be  burnt."  (Stow's  Chron- 
icle, p.  576.) 

Proude,  the  historian,  says  of  these  people: 
"The  details  are  gone — their  names  are  gone. 
Poor  Hollanders  they  were,  and  that  is  all. 
Scarcely  the  fact  seemed  worthy  of  the  mention, 
so  shortly  is  it  told  in  a  passing  paragraph.  For 
them  no  Europe  was  agitated,  no  courts  were 
ordered  into  mourning,  no  papal  hearts  trembled 
with  indignation.  At  their  death  the  world 
looked  on  complacent,  indifferent  or  exulting. 
Yet  here,  too,  out  of  twenty-five  poor  men  and 
women  were  found  fourteen  who,  by  no  terror  of 
stake  or  torture,  could  be  tempted  to  say  they 
believed  what  they  did  not  believe.  History  for 
them  has  no  word  of  praise;  yet  they,  too,  were 
not  giving  their  blood  in  vain.  Their  lives  might 
have  been  as  useless  as  the  lives  of  the  most  of 
us.  In  their  death  they  assisted  to  pay  the  pur- 
chase-money for  England's  freedom." 


76  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

In  1536,  the  King  and  Convocation  set  forth 
articles  against  the  Baptists,  of  which  I  present 
the  following: 

"1.  Infants  must  needs  be  christened,  because 
they  be  born  in  original  sin;  which  sin  must 
needs  be  remitted:  which  cannot  be  done  but  by 
the  grace  of  baptism. 

' '  2.  That  they  ought  to  refute  and  take  any  of 
the  Anabaptists'  and  Pelagians'  opinions  con- 
trary to  the  premises,  and  every  other  man's 
opinion  agreeable  unto  the  said  Anabaptists'  and 
Pelagians'  opinions  in  this  behalf,  for  detestable 
heresies,  and  utterly  to  be  condemned. "  (Wall's 
Hist.  Infant  Bapt.,  vol.  1,  p.  524.)  But  the  Ana- 
baptists replied:  "That  it  is  as  lawful  to  christen  . 
a  child  in  a  tub  of  water  at  home,  or  in  a  ditch  by 
the  way.  as  in  a  fontstone  in  the  church."  (Ful- 
ler's Ch.  Hist.,  vol.  2,  p.  71.) 

In  1538,  according  to  Bishop  Burnet,  ' '  There 
was  a  commission  sent  to  Cranmer,  Stokesley, 
Sampson,  and  some  others,  to  enquire  after  Ana- 
baptists, to  proceed  against  them,  to  restore  the 
penitent,  to  burn  their  books,  to  deliver  the  ob- 
stinate to  the  secular  arm." 

In  1539,  King  Henry  married  Lady  Anne  of 
Cleves.  Prom  that  time  Puller  says:  "Dutch- 
men flocked  faster  than  formerly  to  England. 
Many  of  these  had  active  souls;  so  that  whilst 
their  hands  were  busy  about  their  manufactures, 
their  heads  were  also  beating  about  points  of 


THE  EPISCOPALIANS.  77 

divinity.  Hereof  they  had  many  rude  notions, 
too  ignorant  to  manage  them  themselves,  and  too 
proud  to  crave  the  direction  of  others.  Their 
mind  shad  a  by -stream  of  activity  more  than  what 
sufficed  to  di'ive  on  their  vocation;  and  this  waste 
of  their  souls  they  employed  in  needless  specu- 
lations, and  soon  after  began  to  broach  their 
strange  opinions,  being  branded  with  the  general 
name  of  Anabaptists.  These  Anabaptists,  for 
the  main,  are  but  '  Donatists  new  dipped;'  and 
this  year  they  first  appeared  in  our  English 
Chronicles;  for  I  read  that  four  Anabaptists, 
three  men  and  one  woman,  all  Dutch,  bare  fagots 
at  Paul's  cross,  November  24th,  and,  three  days 
after,  a  man  and  a  woman  of  their  sect  were 
burned  at  Smithfield."     (Ch.  Hist.,  vol.  1,  p.  97.) 

In  1540,  Parliament  decreed  against  some  who 
held  ' '  that  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  and 
if  baptized,  to  be  rebaptized  when  they  came  to 
years  of  discretion."  (Collier's  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol. 
5,  p.  69.) 

In  1542,  Parliament  passed  the  following  very 
remarkable  law:  "All  books  likewise  impugning 
the  holy  sacrament  of  the  altar,  or  maintaining 
the  damnable  opinions  of  the  Anabaptists,  are 
prohibited  under  forfeiture  and  fines.  The  read- 
ing of  the  Bible  is  likewise  prohibited  to  all  un- 
der the  degrees  of  gentlemen  and  gentlewomen."' 
(Collier's  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  5,  p.  95.) 

Queen   Elizabeth   ordered,  1560,  all  Anabap- 


78  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

tists,  foreign  and  English,  to  leave  the  kingdom 
in  twenty-one  days,  because  their  ' '  misbelief 
gained  ground  "  and  many  ' '  were  miserably  mis- 
led."    (Collier's  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  6,  p.  332.) 

From  this  period  although  the  Baptists  greatly 
increased  yet  they  were  bitterly  persecuted.  I 
give  here  the  testimony  of  the  celebrated  Dr. 
Featley,  a  most  violent  enemy  and  persecutor  of 
the  Baptists.  He  says:  "So  we  may  say  the 
name  of  the  father  of  the  Anabaptists  signifyeth 
in  English  a  senseless  piece  of  wood  or  block,  a 
very  blockhead  was  he,  yet  out  of  that  block 
were  cut  those  chips  that  kindled  such  a  fire  in 
Germany,  Halsatia,  and  Servia  that  could  not  be 
fully  quenched,  no,  not  with  the  blood  of  150,000 
of  those  killed  in  war  or  put  to  death  in  several 
places  by  the  magistrates.  This  tire  in  the  reign 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  and  King  James  and  our  pre- 
cious sovereign  till  now  was  covered  under  the 
ashes,  or  if  it  broke  out  at  any  time,  by  the  care 
of  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  magistrates  it  was 
soon  put  out.  But  of  late  since  the  unhappy  dis- 
tractions which  our  sins  have  brought  upon  us, 
the  temporal  sword  being  other  ways  employed, 
and  the  spiritual  locked  up  in  the  scabbard,  this 
sect  among  others  hath  so  far  presumed  upon 
the  protection  of  the  State,  that  it  hath  held 
weekly  conventicals,  rebaptized  hundreds  of  men 
and  women  together  in  the  twilight  in  the  rivu- 
lets and  several  arms  of  the  Thames  and  else- 


THE  EPISCOPALIANS.  79 

where,  dipping  them  over  head  and  ears."  (The 
Dippers  Dipped,  or  the  Anabaptists  Plunged 
over  Head  and  Ears.  London,  1647.  Preface,  p.  3.) 

The  feeling  of  Bishop  Latimer  toward  the 
Baptists  was  the  common  one.  He  said  in  a  ser- 
mon before  Edward  VI :  "  The  Anabaptists  that 
were  burnt  here  in  divers  towns  in  England  went 
to  their  death  even  intrepid,  as  ye  will  say,  with- 
out any  fear  in  the  world,  cheerfully.  Well,  let 
them  go." 

All  that  could  be  said  of  these  people  was  that 
they  were  Baptists.  Hess,  in  his  Life  of  Zwingle, 
says  of  them :  ' '  Their  morality  was  rigid,  their 
exterior  simple;  they  disdained  riches,  or  affected 
to  do  so;  and  their  austere  demeanor  impressed 
the  multitude  with  reverence,  and  at  the  same 
time  their  doctrines  seduced  them." 

In  America  when  they  had  power  the  Epis- 
copalians were  no  better.  One  law  passed  in 
Virginia  will  give  an  idea  of  their  intolerance. 
I  quote  from  Henning's  Statutes  at  Large,  Laws 
of  Virginia,  vol.  2,  p.  165,  December  14th,  1662: 
"Whereas  many  schismatical  persons  out  of 
their  averseness  to  the  orthodox  established 
religion,  or  out  of  the  new-fangled  conceits  of 
their  own  heretical  inventions,  refused  to  have 
their  children  baptized.  Be  it  therefore  enacted, 
by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  all  persons  that, 
in  contempt  of  the  divine  sacrament  of  baptism, 
shall  refuse  when  they  may  carry  their  child  to 
a  lawful  minister  in  that  county  to  have  them 


80  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

baptized  shall  be  amersed  two  thousand  pounds 
of  tobacco;  half  to  the  informer,  half  to  the 
publique. "' 

And  these  statutes  were  i)ut  into  execution. 
A  Baptist  minister  in  jail  in  Virginia,  put  there 
by  Episcopalians,  was  no  uncommon  thing. 

Dr.  Hawks,  who  was  himself  an  Episcopalian, 
says  of  the  Baptists  of  Virginia:  "Their  first 
preachers  came  from  the  North,  and  some  few 
arose  in  the  South :  all  met  with  opposition  from 
those  in  power.  'The  ministers  (says  Leland) 
were  imprisoned,  and  the  disciples  buffeted.' 
This  is  but  too  true.  No  dissenters  in  Virginia 
experienced  for  a  time  harsher  treatment  than 
did  the  Baptists.  They  were  beaten  and  impris- 
oned; and  cruelty  taxed  its  ingenuity  to  devise 
new  modes  of  punishment  and  annoyance.  The 
usual  consequences  followed;  persecution  made 
friends  for  its  victims;  and  the  men  who  were 
not  permitted  to  speak  in  jjublic,  found  willing 
auditors  in  the  sympathizing  crowds  who  gath- 
ered around  the  prisons  to  hear  them  preach 
from  grated  windows."  (Contrib.  Eccl.  Hist. 
U.  S.,  vol.  1,  p.  121.) 

With  this  history  of  j^ersecution  and  bloodshed 
the  Episcopal  Church  can  lay  no  claim  to  open 
communion.  We  therefore  justly  arrive  at  the 
conclusion  that  the  Episcopalians  are  close  com- 
munionists.  I  know  none  who  demand  more  at 
the  Lord's  Table.  The  Episcopalians  do  not 
ask,  nor  expect  others  to  participate  with  them. 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  81 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  TERMS  OF   COMMUNION   IN  THE  PRESBYTE- 
RIAN CHURCH.       ARE  THE  PRESBYTERIANS 
CLOSE   COMMUNIONISTS? 

ON  this  communion  question  the  declarations 
and  acts  of  the  Presbyterian  Chui'ch  have 
been  very  exj^licit.  They  have  spoken  in  no  un- 
certain terms.     I  present  the  facts : 

1.  Among  Presbyterians,  conversion,  baptism 
and  church  membership  are  prerequisites  to  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  says:  "There  be  only 
two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  our  Lord  in 
the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  baptism  and  the  Sup- 
per of  the  Lord."     (Art.  27.) 

This  is  the  exact  order  we  claim. 

Calvin  says  in  the  Catechism  of  the  Church  at 
Geneva:  "Is  it  enough  to  receive  both  of  the 
sacraments  once  in  a  lifetime?  It  is  enough  so  to 
receive  baptism,  which  may  not  be  repeated.  It 
is  different  with  the  Supper.  What  is  the  differ- 
ence? By  baptism  the  Lord  adopts  us  and  brings 
us  into  his  church,  so  as  thereafter  to  regard  us 
as  a  part  of  his  household.  After  he  has  admit- 
ted us  among  the  number  of  his  people  he  testi- 


82  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

ties  by  the  Supper  that  he  takes  a  continual  in- 
terest in  nourishing  us." 

Henry  BuUinger  says:  "Unto  the  baptism  of 
our  Lord  Christ,  is  coupled  the  sacrament  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  which  we  call  the 
Lord's  Supper.  For,  those  whom  the  Lord  hath 
regenerated  with  the  laver  of  regeneration,  those 
doth  he  also  feed  with  his  spiritual  food;  and 
nourish  them  unto  eternal  life:  wherefore  it  fol- 
loweth  necessarily,  that  we  entreat  next  of  the 
holy  Supper  of  the  Lord."  (Sermons  on  the 
Sacraments,  p.  197.) 

Rev.  Wm.  C.  Roberts,  D.D.,  Moderator  of  the 
Presbyterian  General  Assembly,  and  Secretary 
of  the  Board  of  Home  Missions  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  of  the  United  States,  says: 

New  York,  May  10,  1892. 
Rev.  J.  T.  Christian,  Jackson,  Miss. 

Dear  Bro.:  Yours  of  the  4th  inst.  has  just  come 
to  hand.  The  terms  of  admission  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  are  credible 
evidence  of  conversion.  We  require  that  at  the 
beginning  of  a  holy  life.  We  require  baptism 
before  one  is  to  be  publicly  recognized  as  a 
church  member.  We  do  not  deem  church  mem- 
bership essential  to  salvation,  but  we  hold  that 
every  converted  person  will  necessarily  desire  to 
be  identified  with  God's  people.  There  are  no 
other  prerequisites  to  membership  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church. 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  83 

Hoping  that  the  above  will  be  satisfactory,  I 
remain,  Yours  fraternally, 

Wm.  C.  Roberts. 

I  have  at  hand  a  remarkably  fine  letter  from 
Dr.  Theodore  Cuyler,  for  thirty  years  pastor  of 
Lafayette  Square  Presbyterian  Church,  Brook- 
lyn. N.  Y.     He  says: 

Lafayette  Avenue  Presbytekian  Church.  } 
Brooklyn,  April  3,  1890.  ^ 

Dear  Brother :  In  reply  to  your  questions  I 
would  say: 

1.  The  terms  of  communion  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  require  a  previous  open  confession 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  Saviour  and  Lord. 
That  presupposes  a  membership  in  some  evan- 
gelical church. 

2.  Baptism  is  an  essential  part  of  an  open  pro- 
fession of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  reception  into  the 
visible  church. 

3.  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  any  difference  be- 
tween the  Presbyterians  and  the  Baptists  in  the 
terms  of  communion. 

I  write  in  haste;  but  allow  me  to  express  my 
devout  gratitude  for  all  that  the  great  Baptist 
church  is  doing  for  the  maintenance  of  sound 
evangelical  doctrine  and  for  the  spread  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ. 

Yours  fraternally, 

Theodore  L.  Cuyler. 


84  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

The  Americsin  Presbyterian  says:  "Opencom- 
muuion  is  an  absurdity,  when  it  means  commun- 
ion with  the  unbaptized. " 

Dr.  Pliilip  Schaff  says:  "The  communion  is 
for  baptized  believers,  and  for  them  only.  Bap- 
tism is  the  sacramental  sign  and  seal  of  regener- 
ation and  conversion;  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the 
sacrament  of  sanctification  and  growth  in  spirit- 
ual life."     (Teaching,  p.  193.) 

The  eminent  Presbyterian  j^reacher  of  New 
Orleans,  Dr.  B.  M.  Palmer,  says:  "The  terms  of 
communion  with  us  are  the  profession  of  saving 
faith  in  Christ  and  the  public  acknowledgment 
of  this  in  baptism." 

Dr.  John  Dick  says :  ' '  Every  person  who  has 
been  baptized  does  not  possess  the  moral  quali- 
fications which  would  entitle  him  to  be  accounted 
a  disciple  of  Christ.  He  may  be  an  open  apostate 
from  the  faith;  or  he  may  be  so  ignorant  of 
religion,  and  so  irregular  in  his  conduct,  that  it 
would  be  an  abuse  of  charity  to  consider  him  as 
a  Christian.  Hence  we  demand,  in  candidates 
for  the  Lord's  table,  a  competent  measure  of 
knowledge,  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  and  a 
behaviour  that  will  justify  us  in  believing  them 
to  be  sincere.  'All  ignorant  and  ungodly  per- 
sons,' says  our  church,  '  as  they  are  unfit  to  enjoy 
communion  with  him,  so  they  are  unworthy  of 
the  Lord's  table,  and  cannot  without  great  sin 
against  Christ,  while  they  remain  such,  partake 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  85 

of  these  holy  mysteries,  or  be  admitted  there- 
unto."*    (Lect.  TheoL,  p.  421.) 

It  has  already  been  intimated,  in  the  above, 
that  the  participant  in  the  Lord's  Supper  must 
be  a  member  of  the  church.  The  Confession 
emphasizes  that  the  administration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  the  distinctive  act  of  a  "particular 
church."  I  read:  "The  ordinances  established 
by  Christ,  the  head,  in  a  iKirticular  churdi,  which 
is  regularly  constituted  with  its  proper  officers, 
are  prayer,  singing  praises,  reading,  expounding 
and  preaching  the  Word  of  God;  administering 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  public  solemn 
fasting  and  thanksgiving,  catechising,  making 
collections  for  the  poor,  and  other  pious  pur- 
poses; exercising  discij^line;  and  blessing  the 
people."     (Form  of  Govern. ,  chap,  vii.) 

Nothing  can  be  more  evident  from  these  state- 
ments than  that  the  Presbyterians  demand  con- 
version, baptism  and  church  membership  before" 
the  Lord's  Supper. 

2.  Presbyterians  demand  that  the  Supper  shall 
be  administered  by  a  duly  ordained  minister. 
Of  Baptism  it  is  declared:  "Baptism  is  not  to  be 
unnecessarily  delayed;  nor  to  be  administered,  in 
any  case,  by  any  private  person;  but  by  a  min- 
ister of  Christ,  called  to  be  steward  of  the  mys- 
teries of  God. "  (Directory  for  Worship,  chap.  vii. ) 
Of  the  Lord's  Supper  it  is  said :  ' '  The  Lord  Jesus 
hath  in  this  ordinance,  appointed  his  ministers 


86  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

to  declare  his  word  of  institution  to  the  people, 
to  pray,  and  bless  the  elements  of  bread  and 
wine,  and  thereby  to  set  them  apart  from  a  com- 
mon to  a  holy  use;  and  to  take  and  break  the 
bread,  to  take  the  cup,  and  (they  communicating 
also  themselves)  to  give  both  to  the  communi- 
cants; but  to  none  who  are  not  then  present  in 
the  congregation."  (Con. Faith,  Art.xxix,sec.iii.) 
And  the  same  thing  is  taught  in  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, question  169. 

Dr.  A.  Green,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Shorter 
Catechism,  vol.  2,  p.  358,  says:  "It  is  held  by  us 
essential,  that  a  regularly  ordained  minister  of 
the  gospel  should  administer  this  ordinance." 

3.  Presbyterians  declare  that  the  Baptists  are 
no  closer  than  others.  This  can  be  proved  from 
many  sources. 

The  New  York  Observer,  the  oldest  Presbyte- 
rian paper  in  this  country,  says:  "It  is  not  a 
want  of  Charity  which  compels  the  Baptist  to 
restrict  his  invitation.  He  has  no  hesitation  in 
admitting  the  personal  piety  of  his  unimmersed 
brethren.  Presbyterians  do  not  invite  the  un- 
baptized,  however  pious  they  may  be.  It  is  not 
uncharitable.  It  is  not  bigotry  on  the  part  of  the 
Baptists  to  confine  their  communion  to  those 
whom  they  consider  the  baptized." 

The  Interior,  Chicago,  the  organ  of  the  Western 
Presbyterians,  says:  "We  agree  with  the  Bap- 
tists in  saying  that  unbaptized  persons  should 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  87 

not  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Their  view- 
compels  them  to  think  that  we  are  not  baptized, 
and  shuts  them  up  to  close  communion.  Close 
communion  is,  in  our  judgment,  a  more  defensi- 
ble position  than  open  communion,  which  is 
justified  on  the  ground  that  baptism  is  not  a  pre- 
requisite to  the  Lord's  Supper.  To  charge  Bap- 
tists with  bigotry  because  they  abide  by  the 
logical  consequences  of  their  system  is  absurd." 

Dr.  John  Hunter,  for  thirty  years  pastor  at 
Jackson,  Miss.,  says:  "I  do  not  know  that  there 
is  any  special  difference  in  the  terms  of  admis- 
sion to  the  communion  table  between  Baptists 
and  Presbyterians;  that  is  to  say  that  both  re- 
quire personal  faith  in  an  atoning  Saviour,  and 
both  require  communicants  to  be  baptized."' 

Dr.  Griffin  says :  "I  agree  with  the  advocates 
of  close  communion  in  two  points:  (1)  that  bap- 
tism is  the  initiating  ordinance  which  introduces 
us  into  the  visible  church;  of  course,  where  there 
is  no  baptism  there  are  no  visible  churches; 
(2)  that  we  ought  not  to  commune  with  those 
who  are  not  baptized,  and,  of  course,  are  not 
church  members,  even  if  we  regard  them  as 
Christians.  Should  a  pious  Quaker  so  far  depart 
from  his  principles  as  to  wish  to  commune  with 
me  at  the  Lord's  table,  while  yet  he  refused  to 
be  baptized,  I  could  not  receive  him;  because 
there  is  such  a  relationship  established  between 
the  two  ordinances  that  I  have  no  right  to  sepa- 


88  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

rate  them;  in  other  words,  I  have  no  right  to 
send  the  sacred  elements  out  of  the  church. " 
-  Dr.  John  Hall,  one  of  the  greatest  preachers 
in  this  country,  says:  "I  think  that  all  evangel- 
ical churches  look  for  baptized  persons  as  com- 
municants. The  Baptists  differ  from  their  breth- 
ren as  to  the  time  and  mode  of  baptism.  I  do 
not  think  the  Baptists  and  Presbyterians  differ 
in  any  other  respect  as  to  the  terms  of  commun- 
ion at  the  Lord's  table." 

The  Baptists  are  not,  therefore,  illiberal  on 
account  of  this  practice.  It  is  conceded  that  we 
have  a  right  to  have  principles,  and  to  stand  by 
them.    This  is  all  we  have  ever  asked. 

4.  Presbyterians  claim  that  they  have  a  right 
to  make  such  laws  as  they  may  choose  to  govern 
the  approach  of  communicants  to  their  table. 
In  doing  this  they  contend  that  they  have  not 
gone  beyond  their  rights,  although  they  should 
make  stringent  laws  governing  their  own  mem- 
bers. Hence  1  read  in  the  Confession  of  Faith: 
"That  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  above 
principle  of  common  right,  every  Christian 
church,  or  union  or  association  of  particular 
churches,  is  entitled  to  declare  the  terms  of  ad- 
mission into  its  communion,  and  the  qualifica- 
tions of  its  ministers  and  members,  as  well  as 
the  whole  system  of  its  internal  government 
which  Christ  has  appointed :  that  in  the  exercise 
of  this  right,  they  may,  notwithstanding,  err,  in 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  89 

making  the  terms  of  communion  either  too  lax  or 
too  narrow:  yet,  even  in  this  case,  they  do  not 
infringe  upon  the  liberty,  or  the  rights  of  others, 
but  only  make  an  improper  use  of  their  own." 
(Con.  Faith,  Form  Govern.,  B.  I,  sec.  2.) 

These  Church  Rights  were  fully  endorsed  by 
thfe  General  Assembly  in  1839.  That  body  said: 
"Every  Christian  church,  or  association  of 
churches,  is  entitled  to  declare  the  terms  of  ad- 
mission into  its  communion." 

The  Presbyterians  not  only  assumed  that  they 
had  a  right  to  make  such  laws,  but  they  made 
them  and  carried  them  into  execution.  On 
October  the  20th,  1645,  the  Presbyterians  in  the 
English  Parliament  jiassed  a  very  full  and  ex- 
clusive law  on  this  subject.  It  was  known  as: 
"An  ordinance  of  the  Lords  and  Commons  as- 
sembled in  Parliament  about  Suspension  from 
the  Loi'd's  Supper."  (Rushwood,  vol.  6,  pp.  210- 
212.)  That  law  resulted  m  the  XXXth  Article 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which  is  the  law  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  to-day.  That  Article 
reads  in  sections  iii  and  iv:  "Church  censures 
are  necessary  for  the  reclaiming  and  gaining  of 
offending  brethren;  for  deterring  of  others  from 
like  offenses;  for  purging  out  of  that  leaven 
which  might  infect  the  whole  lump;  for  vindi- 
cating the  honour  of  Christ,  and  the  holy  pro- 
fession of  the  Gospel;  and  for  preventing  the 
wrath  of  God.  which  might  justl}^  fall  upon  the 


90  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

church,  if  they  should  suffer  this  covenant,  and 
the  seals  thereof,  to  be  profaned  by  notorious 
and  obstinate  offenders. 

' '  For  the  better  attaining  of  these  ends,  the 
officers  of  the  church  are  to  proceed  by  admoni- 
tion, suspension  from  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  for  a  season,  and  by  excommunication 
from  the  church,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
crime,  and  demerit  of  the  person." 

The  Larger  Catechism,  Q.  173,  is  in  full  accord 
with  the  above  article.  It  reads:  "May  any  who 
profess  the  faith,  and  desire  to  come  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  be  kept  from  it?  Such  as  are 
found  to  be  ignorant  or  scandalous,  notwith- 
standing their  profession  of  the  faith  and  desire 
to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  may  and  ought  to 
be  kept  from  that  sacrament  by  the  power  which 
Christ  has  left  in  his  church,  until  they  receive 
instruction  and  manifest  their  reformation." 

And  for  fear  that  somebody  might  not  consider 
the  Confession  of  Faith  a  close  communion  docu- 
ment it  is  put  down  under  the  Directory  of  Wor- 
ship, chapter  VIII: 

"  I.  The  communion,  or  supper  of  the  Lord,  is 
to  be  celebrated  frequently;  but  how  often,  may 
be  determined  by  the  minister  and  eldership  of 
each  congregation,  as  they  may  judge  most  for 
edification. 

"II.  The  ignorant  and  scandalous  are  not  to 
be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 


i 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  91 

' '  III.  It  is  projjer  that  public  notice  should  be 
given  to  the  congregation,  at  least,  the  Sabbath 
before  the  administration  of  this  ordinance,  and 
that,  either  then,  or  on  some  day  of  the  week,  the 
people  be  instructed  in  its  nature,  and  due  prep- 
aration for  it;  that  all  may  come  in  a  suitable 
manner  to  this  holy  feast." 

Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  sums  up  the  entire  matter  in 
these  words :  '  'All  church  power  must  be  exer- 
cised in  an  orderly  manner  through  the  officers 
spoken  of  above,  freely  chosen  for  this  purpose 
by  the  brethren;  and  it  relates:  1.  To  matters  of 
doctrine.  She  has  a  right  to  set  forth  a  public 
declaration  of  the  truths  which  she  believes,  and 
which  are  to  be  acknowledged  by  all  who  enter 
her  communion.  That  is,  she  has  a  right  to 
frame  creeds  or  confessions  of  faith,  as  her  tes- 
timony for  the  truth  and  her  protest  against 
error.  And  as  she  has  been  commissioned  to 
teach  all  nations,  she  has  the  right  of  selecting 
teachers,  of  judging  of  their  fitness,  of  ordaining 
and  sending  them  forth  in  the  field,  and  of  re- 
calling and  deposing  them  when  unfaithful. 
2.  The  Church  has  power  to  set  down  rules  for 
the  ordering  of  public  worship.  3.  She  has 
power  to  make  rules  for  her  own  govermnent; 
such  as  every  church  has  in  its  book  of  disci- 
jDline,  etc.  4.  She  has  power  to  receive  into  fel- 
lowship, and  to  exclude  the  unworthy  from  her 
own  communion."  (Com.  on  Con.  Faith,  pp.  501, 
502.) 


92  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

The  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  if  Presby- 
terians have  laid  down  such  stringent  rules  in 
the  observance  of  the  Supper,  and  claim  that 
they  have  a  full  right  so  to  do,  they  cannot  con- 
sistently object  to  any  practice  that  may  exist 
among  the  Baptists. 

5.  The  history  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  has 
been  one  of  strict  communion.  A  study  of  their 
history  developed  the  fact  that  they  have  not 
sought  communion  with  other  denominations; 
nor  has  there  been  inter- communion  among  the 
various  Presbyterian  bodies.  I  invite  your  atten- 
tion to  the  i^ractice  of  the  Presbyterians  in  a 
number  of  countries. 

The  Presbyterians  originated  in  Switzerland 
with  John  Calvin.  He  was  by  no  means  an  open 
communionist.  So  far  from  this  being  the  case 
he  instituted  the  most  rigid  laws  against  others; 
and  even  put  Servetus  to  death  because  he  was 
not  in  sympathy  with  his  views.  The  celebrated 
Francis  Turretin,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Ge- 
neva, shows  the  spirit  of  that  country  toward 
others.  He  says :  ' '  Smce  magistrates  are  keep- 
ers of  both  tables,  and  the  care  of  religion  per- 
tains to  them,  they  ought  to  provide  that  it 
should  suffer  no  injury,  and  should  in  wisdom 
oppose  those  who  assert  it,  lest  the  poison  insin- 
uate itself  more  widely,  and  be  diffused  through 
the  whole  body.  But  magistrates  cannot  protect 
religion,  unless  they  restrain  the  obstinate  and 


THE  TRKSl'.YTERTAXS.  93 

factious  contemners  thereof.  Such  interference, 
both  the  glory  of  God.  of  which  they  are  the 
defenders,  and  the  safety  of  the  commonwealth, 
of  which  they  are  the  guardians,  demand.  If 
less  evils  are  restrained  by  heavy  penalties,  this, 
which  is  the  greatest,  w^hich  injures  the  trust  of 
God,  which  blasphemes  his  name,  which  rends 
the  Church,  which  corrupts  the  faith,  and  brings 
into  danger  the  safety  of  the  faithful,  should  not 
be  permitted  to  go  unpunished.  Rather  is  there 
frequently  required,  that  a  speedy  and  powerful 
remedy  be  applied;  inasmuch,  as  from  this  quar- 
ter, the  destruction  of  the  whole  body  is  threat- 
ened, unless  the  application  be  quickly  made." 
(De  Polit.  Ecc.  gubern..  Tim.  iii,  Loc.  xviii, 
quaesti  xxxiv,  p.  278. ) 

In  Scotland  it  was  requu-ed :  ' '  That  all  kings 
and  princes,  at  their  coronation,  and  reception 
of  their  princely  authority,  shall  make  their 
faithful  promise,  by  their  solemn  oath,  in  the 
presence  of  their  eternal  God,  that  during  the 
whole  of  their  lives,  they  shall  serve  the  same 
eternal  God,  to  the  utmost  of  their  power,  ac- 
cording as  he  hath  required  in  his  most  holy 
word,  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament; 
and,  according  to  the  same  word,  shall  maintain 
the  true  religion  of  Christ  Jesus,  the  preaching 
of  his  holy  word,  the  due  and  rightful  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments  now  received  and 
preached  within  this  realm,  (according  to  the 


94  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Confession  of  Faith  immediately  preceding)  and 
shall  abolish  and  gainstand  all  false  religion  con- 
trary to  the  same;  and  shall  rule  the  people  com- 
mitted to  their  charge,  accordmg  to  the  will  and 
command  of  God,  revealed  in  his  foresaid  word, 
and  according  to  the  laudable  laws  and  constitu- 
tions received  in  this  realm,  no  wise  repugnant 
to  the  said  will  of  the  eternal  God;  and  shall 
procure  to  the  utmost  of  their  power,  to  the  kirk 
of  God,  and  the  whole  Christian  j^eople,  true  and 
perfect  peace  in  all  time  coming;  and  that  they 
shall  be  careful  to  root  out  of  their  empire  all 
heretics  and  enemies  to  the  true  worship  of  God, 
who  shall  be  convicted  by  the  true  kirk  of  God 
of  the  aforesaid  crimes."  (Coronation  Oath  in 
the  National  Covenant.) 

In  Scotland  there  was  a  general  form  of  ex- 
pulsion of  unworthy  persons  from  the  Lord's 
table,  in  connection  with  the  ministration  of  the 
sacrament.  This  was  called  excommunication  or 
'  ••  fencing  the  tables. "  (Fisher's  Ch.  Hist. ,  p.  368. ) 
It  was  further  required  that  office  holders  should 
be  communicants  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  first  Confession  of  Helvetia  declares: 
"Seeing  that  every  magistrate  is  of  God,  his 
chief  duty,  except  it  please  him  to  exercise 
tyranny,  consists  in  this :  to  defend  religion  from 
all  blasphemy,  to  promote  it,  as  the  prophet 
teaches,  out  of  the  word  of  God,  to  see  it  put  in 
practice,  as  far  as  it  lies  in  him."     The  latter 


'I'HE  PRESBYTERIANS.  95 

Confession,  which  was  expressly  approved  by  the 
Church  of  Scotland  and  other  Presbyterians, 
says:  "Magistracy,  of  whatever  sort  it  be,  is 
ordained  of  God  himself,  for  the  peace  and  tran-" 
quility  of  mankind;  so  that  the  magistracy  ought 
to  have  the  chief  place  in  the  world.  If  he  be 
an  adversary  of  the  Church,  he  may  greatly  hin- 
der and  disturb  it;  but  if  he  be  a  friend  and 
member  of  the  Church,  he  is  a  most  profitable 
member,  and  may  excellently  aid  and  advance  it. 
His  principal  duty  is  to  procure  and  maintain 
peace  and  public  tranquility;  which  doubtless  he 
will  never  do  more  happily  than  when  he  is  sea- 
soned with  the  fear  of  God,  and  true  religion, 
particularly  when  we  shall,  after  the  examples 
of  the  most  holy  kings  and  princes  of  the  people 
of  the  Lord,  advance  the  preaching  of  the  truth, 
and  the  pure  unadulterated  faith,  shall  extirpate 
falsehood,  and  all  superstition,  impiety  and  idol- 
atry, and  shall  defend  the  Church  of  God;  for 
indeed  we  teach  that  the  care  of  religion  doth 
chiefly  appertain  to  the  holy  magistrate."' 

The  Confession  of  Saxony  says :  ' '  The  word  of 
God  doth  in  general,  teach  this,  concerning  the 
power  of  the  magistrate;  first,  that  God  wills 
that  the  magistrates,  without  all  doubt,  should 
sound  forth  the  voice  of  the  moral  law  among 
men,  according  to  the  ten  commandments,  or  law 
natural,  by-laws  forbidding  idolatry  and  blas- 
phemies, as  well  as  murders,  theft,  etc. ,  for  well 


96  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

it  has  been  said  of  old:  "The  magistrate  is  a 
keeper  of  the  law,  i.e.,  of  the  first  and  second 
table,  as  concerning  discipline  and  good  order. 
This  ought  to  be  their  special  care  (of  kingdoms 
and  of  their  rulers),  to  hear  and  embrace  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  to  cherish 
the  churches,  according  to  Ps.  ii  and  xxiv,  and 
Isaiah  xlix,  and  kings  and  queens  shall  be  thy 
nurses,  i.  e.,  let  commonwealths  be  nurses  of  the 
church,  and  to  godly  studies." 

The  Dutch  Confession  says :  God  ' '  hath  armed 
the  magistrate  with  a  sword,  to  punish  the  bad 
and  to  defend  the  good.  Furthermore,  it  is  their 
duty  to  be  careful  not  only  to  preserve  the  civil 
polity,  but  also  to  endeavor  that  the  ministry  be 
preserved:  that  all  idolatry  and  counterfeit  wor- 
ship be  abolished,  the  kingdom  of  Antichrist  be 
brought  down,  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ  be  en- 
larged; in  fine,  that  it  is  their  duty  to  bring  it  to 
pass,  that  the  holy  word  of  the  Gospel  be 
preached  everywhere,  that  all  men  may  serve 
God,  purely  and  freely,  according  to  the  pre- 
scribed will  of  his  word." 

The  French  Confession  says :  ' '  God  hath  de- 
livered the  sword  unto  the  magistrate's  hand, 
that  sins  committed  against  both  tables  of  God's 
law,  not  only  against  the  second,  but  the  first 
also,  may  be  supj^ressed." 

There  is  nothing  of  open  communion  in  these 
Presbyterian  laws   and   Confessions    of   Faith. 


THE  PRESBYTERIAXS.  97 

Wlien  we  recollect  that  these  heretics  and  blas- 
phemers were  none  other  than  Baptists,  and  that 
the  magistrates  were  to  root  them  out,  and  either 
banish  them  from  the  country  or  burn  them  at 
the  stake,  we  shudder.  These  things  settle  be- 
yond a  doubt  that  the  Presbyterians  of  Europe 
were  not  open  communionists. 

In  the  United  States  the  history  of  Presbyte- 
rianism  is  against  open  communion.  I  present  a 
statement  from  Thomas  Jefferson  on  Presbyteri- 
anism.  He  says:  "The  atmosphere  of  our  coun- 
try is  unquestionably  charged  with  a  threatening 
cloud  of  fanaticism,  lighter  in  some  parts,  denser 
in  others,  but  too  heavy  in  all.  I  had  no  idea, 
however,  that  in  Pennsylvania,  the  cradle  of  tol- 
eration, and  freedom  of  religion,  it  could  have 
risen  to  the  height  you  describe.  This  must  be 
owing  to  the  growth  of  Presbyterianism.  Here 
Episcopalian  and  Presbyterian,  Methodist  and 
Baptist,  join  together  in  humming  their  Maker, 
listen  with  attention  and  devotion  to  each  others' 
preachers,  and  all  mix  in  society  with  perfect 
harmony.  It  is  not  so  in  the  districts  Avhere 
Presbyterianism  prevails  undividedly.  Their 
ambition  and  tyranny  would  tolerate  no  rival,  if 
they  had  power.  Systematical  at  grasping  at  an 
ascendency  over  all  other  sects,  they  aim  at  en- 
grossing the  education  of  the  country,  they  are 
hostile  to  every  institution  that  they  do  not  di- 


98  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

rect;  are  jealous  of  seeing  others  begin  to  attend 
at  all  to  that  object."    (Works,  vol.  4,  p.  358.) 

On  the  same  subject  he  says  in  his  letter  to 
William  Short:  "The  Presbyterian  clergy  are 
the  loudest,  the  most  intolerant  of  all  sects;  the 
most  tyrannical  and  ambitious;  ready  at  the  word 
of  the  lawgiver,  if  such  a  word  could  now  be  ob- 
tained, to  put  the  torch  to  the  pile,  and  to  rekin- 
dle in  this  virgin  hemisphere  the  flames  in  which 
their  oracle,  Calvin,  consumed  the  poor  Servetus, 
because  he  could  not  subscribe  to  the  proposition 
of  Calvin,  that  magistrates  have  a  right  to  ex- 
terminate all  heretics  to  the  Calvinistic  creed. 
They  pant  to  re-establish,  by  law,  that  holy  in- 
quisition, which  they  can  now  only  infuse  into 
public  opinion."  (p.  322.) 

When  the  great  struggle  came  in  Virginia  for 
the  complete  disestablishment  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  the  Presbyterians  passed  many  noble 
resolutions.  But  when,  at  length,  the  General 
Assembly  passed  a  law,  that  ' '  a  general  assess- 
ment for  the  support  of  religion  ought  to  be  ex- 
tended to  those  who  profess  the  public  worship 
of  the  Deity,"  and  there  was  a  chance  for  the 
Presbyterians  to  receive  State  aid,  they  faltered. 
(Journal  House  of  Delegates,  October,  1784,  32.) 
Rives  says  this  was  "  in  a  memorial  presented  by 
the  united  clergy  of  the  Presbyterian  Church." 
(Life  and  Times  of  Madison,  vol.  1,  p.  601.) 

Dr.  Foot,  a  Presbyterian  historian  of  Virginia, 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  99 

says  that  the  Hanover  Presbytery  prepared  for 
the  Legislature,  November  12th,  1784,  a  plan  of 
assessment  as  follows: 

'"1.  Religion  as  a  spiritual  system  is  not  to  be 
considered  as  an  object  of  human  legislation,  but 
may  be  in  a  civil  view,  as  preserving  the  exist- 
ence and  promoting  the  happiness  of  society. 

2.  That  public  worship  and  public  periodical  in- 
struction to  the  people,  be  maintained  in  this 
view  by  a  general  assessment  for  this  purpose. 

3.  That  every  man,  as  a  good  citizen,  be  obliged 
to  declare  himself  attached  to  some  religious 
community,  publicly  known  to  profess  the  belief 
of  one  God,  His  righteous  providence,  our  ac- 
countableness  to  Him,  and  a  future  state  of  re- 
wards and  punishments.  4.  That  every  citizen 
should  have  liberty  annually  to  direct  his  as- 
sessed proportion  to  such  community  as  he 
chooses.  5.  Provides  that  twelve  tithables  shall 
exclusively  direct  the  application  of  the  money 
contributed  for  their  support."  (Sketches  of 
Virginia,  p.  338.) 

President  Madison,  writing  of  this  struggle, 
under  date  of  April  12th,  1785,  says  of  this  pro- 
posal to  continue  taxation :  ' '  The  Episcopal  peo- 
ple are  generally  for  it — the  tax.  The  Presby- 
terians seem  as  ready  to  set  up  an  establishment 
which  is  to  take  them  in,  as  they  were  to  pull 
down  that  which  shut  them  out.  I  do  not  know 
a  more  shameful  contrast  than  might  be  found 


100  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

between  their  memorials  on  the  latter  and  the 
former  occasions."  (Rive's  Life  Madison,  vol.  1, 
p.  630.) 

Referring  to  the  Presbyterians  in  this  crisis 
Dr.  Hawks  says:  "When  that  great  end  (the 
giving  a  death  blow  to  the  legalized  superiority) 
was  once  obtained,  and  every  religious  society 
stood  upon  the  same  level,  the  question  in  dis- 
pute assumed  to  these  allies  a  very  different 
aspect,  and  they  deserted  the  standard  under 
which  they  had  before  achieved  their  victory. 
They  had  prostrated  the  church;  they  had 
proved  themselves  not  at  all  reluctant  to  strip 
her  clergy  of  that  competent  maintenance  which 
was  secured  to  them  by  the  possession  of  prop- 
erty; but  they  now  manifested  an  aversion,  more 
rational  than  consistent,  in  being  left  to  find  a 
precarious  support  for  themselves,  in  the  tender 
mercies  of  a  set  of  voluntary  contributors." 
(Hawks'  Hist.  Prot.  Epis.  Ch.,  pp.  151,  152.) 

In  every  country  where  Presbyterians  have 
had  power  they  have  persecuted. 

I  do  not  regard  the  people  who  are  Presbyte- 
rians as  worse  than  others;  but  the  trouble  is  in 
the  organic  law  of  Presbyterianism.  Perhaps 
Dr.  Guthrie  has  rightly  put  it:  "So  I  fear  that, 
on  departing  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  we  car- 
ried into  our  Protestantism — as  was  not  un- 
natural— some  of  her  ancient  superstitions;  just 
as  our  fathers  carried  into  their  practices  some 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  101 

of  her  intolerant  principles.  We  cannot  approve 
of  their  intolerance,  yet  it  admits  of  an  apology. 
They  had  been  suckled  by  the  wolf,  and  it 
is  no  great  wonder  that,  with  the  milk  of  the 

WOLF,  they   should    HAVE    IMBIBED    SOME   OF 

HER  NATURE."     (Gospel  in  Ezek.,  p.  213.) 

The  Presbyterian  Churches  of  this  country  do 
not  commune  with  their  Eurojjean  brethren.  Dr. 
Breckinridge,  in  his  debate  with  Archbishop 
Hughes  of  the  Catholic  Church,  says:  "Mr. 
Hughes  says:  And  if  they  have  changed,  as  he 
asserts,  let  the  next  General  Assembly  break 
commimion  with  their  sister  Presbyteries  in 
Europe,  in  whose  Confessions  of  Faith  the  prin- 
ciples of  intolerance  are  avowed  as  a  doctrine. 
Now  the  truth  is,  Mr.  Hughes,  ignorantly  I 
would  fain  hope,  has  entirely  falsified  the  facts. 
We  hold  no  such  communion  with  any  such 
churches.  The  Church  of  Scotland  has  an  es- 
tablishment, and  retains  the  intolerant  doctrine. 
The  consequence  is  we  have  no  communion  with 
her.  The  Irish  Church  (the  Synod  of  Ulster) 
receives  the  regium  donum.  We  have  no  recip- 
rocity with  her."  (Hughes  and  Breckinridge 
Debate,  p.  527.) 

We  have  a  more  recent  example.  The  Pan- 
Presbyterian  Council  at  Philadelphia,  in  1880, 
refused  to  observe  the  Lord's  Supper  together, 
upon  the  ground  that  the  Supper  is  a  Church 
ordinance,  to  be  observed  only  by  those  who  are 


102  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

amenable  to  the  discipline  of  the  body,  and  there- 
fore not  to  be  observed  by  separate  Church  or- 
ganizations acting  together.  Substantially  upon 
this  ground  the  Old  School  General  Assembly 
long  before,  being  invited  to  unite  at  the  Lord's 
table  with  the  New  School  body  with  whom  they 
had  dissolved  ecclesiastical  relations  declined  to 
do  so.  (See  Strong's  Systemat.  TheoL,  p.  549.) 
Dr.  Engles,  editor  of  the  Philadelphia  Presby- 
terian, September  12th,  1840,  took  the  ground 
that  the  Old  School  Presbyterians  could  not 
commune  with  the  Methodists  and  the  New 
School  Presbyterians.  In  reply  to  some  resolu- 
tions of  the  West  Hanover  Presbytery,  Virginia, 
formally  condemning  this  doctrine,  he  observes: 
'  'As  Presbyterians  we  profess  to  receive  our  de- 
nominational distinction  from  the  symbols  of 
faith  w^hich  we  adopt;  and  w^e  regard  other  de- 
nominations as  having  their  distinctive  belief 
and  character,  of  which  we  judge  by  their  public 
symbols.  The  opinion  that  Confessions  or  doc- 
trinal formularies  are  only  obligatory  on  the 
ministry,  and  not  on  the  people  of  a  church,  is, 
in  our  judgment,  a  most  dangerous  one;  the 
adoption  of  it  must  at  once  destroy  the  homo- 
geneity of  a  church,  and  give  full  license  to  the 
people  to  embrace  every  form  of  error.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  presumed  that  a  Presbyterian  be- 
lieves in  Presbyterian  doctrine,  or  why  is  he  a 
Presbyterian?   And  that  a  Methodist  believes  in 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  103 

the  doctrines  of  his  own  church,  or  why  is  he  not 
something  else?  The  Methodists  and  Presbyte- 
rians alike  believe  that  they  have  very  good  rea- 
sons for  being  as  they  are;  nay,  so  potent  are 
those  reasons  regarded  to  be,  that  neither  imag- 
ines he  could  ever  be  induced  to  change  his  posi- 
tion. Now  all  we  have  contended  for  is  consist- 
ency in  carrying  this  principle  out  into  practice. 
'  'As  our  Methodist  brethren  *  *  *  have  taken 
umbrage  at  our  language,  let  us  ask  them  if  they 
are  prepared  to  advise  their  people,  on  all  favor- 
able occasions,  to  go  and  commune  with  the 
Presbyterians?  Do  they  wish  them  to  think  there 
is  no  difference  between  the  denominations?  Do 
they  regard  the  difference  as  so  trivial  as  to  in- 
vite entire  oblivion  of  them  by  their  flocks,  when 
they  stray  into  Presbyterian  folds?  We  judge 
not.  Why  then  should  they  be  angry  with  us 
for  following  their  example?  Holding  the  faith 
we  do  *  *  *  can  we,  or  ought  we  to  say  to  the 
sheep  of  our  fold — Yonder  are  pastures  in  which 
we  believe  there  are  poisonous  weeds  growing, 
but  still  there  can  be  but  little  danger  of  occa- 
sionally feeding  there?  In  this  matter  we  have 
never  found  our  Methodist  brethren  a  particle 
more  liberal  than  ourselves.  We  have  never 
found  them  baclrward  in  decrying  Presbyterian- 
ism;  and  we,  on  the  other  hand,  candidly  tell 
them,  as  we  have  often  told  them  before,  that  we 


104  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

consider  their  system  as  very  erroneous.  For 
each  of  us  thus  to  think  is  our  right,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  Christian  liberty,  but  is  it  quite  possible 
that  we  should  forget  this,  and  lay  aside  our 
strong  feelings  on  the  subject,  while  we  com- 
mune together?  " 

Of  the  New  School  Presbyterians  Dr.  Engles 
says :  * '  The  West  Hanover  resolutions  express  as 
much  solicitude  to  be  on  as  good  terms  with  the 
New  School  as  with  the  Methodists.  If  we  un- 
derstand them,  they  wish  the  whole  world  to 
know  that  they  distinctly  disavow  the  exclusive - 
ness  which  would  refuse  to  commune  with  the 
men  whom  they,  as  Presbyterians,  heli:)ed  out  of 
the  Church.  If  we  mistake  not  they  took  an 
honorable  part  in  the  exclusive  measures  by 
which  the  New  School  lost  their  statutes  in  our 
church;  we  say,  their  statutes  in  our  church,  for 
although  the  exclusion  in  question  did  not  affect 
their  ecclesiastical  organization,  all  the  world 
knows  that  the  excluded  party  are  not  now,  and 
never  have  been  since  the  passage  of  the  acts,  in 
the  communion  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 
When,  therefore,  this  Presbytery  publicly  says 
that  they  wish,  with  all  '  liberality  and  Christian 
courtesy,'  to  hold  communion  with  them — what 
must  they  think?  If  such  language  does  not 
sound  like  a  bitter  mockery  in  their  ears,  we  are 
not  well   skilled   in   sounds.     The   measure  by 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  105 

which  the  New  School  was  excluded  from  the 
Presbyterian  church  was  either  righteous  or  un- 
righteous; if  the  former,  why  should  we  make 
any  professions  of  attachment  which  our  actions 
do  not  sustain,  or  if  the  latter,  why  do  we  not 
magnanimously  avow  it,  and  invite  them  back  in 
a  body?  We  believe  it  was  righteous,  and  whether 
right  or  wrong  in  our  belief,  we  contend  that, 
while  the  causes  exist  which  led  to  it,  it  is  ut- 
terly inexpedient  to  hold  communion  with  those 
churches."  (Philadelphia  Presbyterian,  Septem- 
ber 12th,  1840.) 

From  the  Synodical  proceedings  of  one  of  the 
Valley  States  we  read:  The  Committee  on  Bills 
and  Overtures,  to  whom  was  referred  the  ques- 
tion :  "  Is  it  proper  that  there  should  be  inter- 
communion between  Presbyterians  and  those  de- 
nominations who  hold  Arminian  sentiments?" 
presented  the  following  report  which  was  adopt- 
ed: "That  after  giving  it  all  the  attention  which 
the  importance  of  the  subject  demands,  they  are 
of  the  opinion  that  for  Presbyterians  to  hold 
communion  in  sealing  ordinances  with  those  who 
deny  the  doctrines  of  grace,  through  the  blood 
of  Christ,  etc.,  is  highly  prejudicial  to  t/he  truth 
as  it  is  in  Jesus.  Nor  can  such  intercommunion 
answer  any  valuable  purpose  to  those  who  prac- 
tice it,  as  two  cannot  walk  together  unless  they 
be  agreed.     Yet,  as  there  are  persons  w\\o  hav*' 


106  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

received  distorted  views  of  the  doctrines  of 
grace,  who  notwithstanding  admit  these  doc- 
trines in  fact,  although  they  are  prejudiced 
against  the  terms  generally  used  in  the  discus- 
sion of  these  subjects,  your  committee  are  of  the 
opinion  that,  if  such  manifest  a  desire  to  hold 
communion  with  us,  that,  after  being  conversed 
with,  and  having  received  satisfaction  on  these 
and  other  points  on  which  their  church  and  ours 
disagree,  and  having  obtained  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  their  piety,  charity  requires  that  they 
should  be  admitted  to  occasional  intercommun- 
ion." (Union  Evangelist,  and  Presbyterian  Ad- 
vocate, 1820,  vol.  2,  pp.  96-99.) 

And  from  the  proceeding  of  one  other  Synod 
we  read :  ' '  The  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that 
for  Presbyterians  to  hold  communion  in  sealing 
ordinances  with  those  who  belong  to  churches 
holding  doctrines  contrary  to  our  standards,  is 
incompatible  with  the  purity  and  the  peace  of  our 
church,  and  highly  prejudicial  to  the  truth  as  it 
is  in  Jesus.  Nor  can  such  communion  answer 
any  valuable  purpose,  etc.  In  accordance  with 
these  views,  your  committee  are  of  opinion  that 
the  practice  of  inviting  to  the  communion  all 
who  are  in  good  standing  in  their  own  churches, 
is  calculated  to  do  much  evil,  and  should  not  be 
continued,  while  every  church  session  is,  how- 
ever, left  at  liberty  to  admit  to  occasional  com- 


THE  PRESBYTERIANS.  107 

muiiion  members  of  other  denominations,  after 
having  conversed  with  them,  and  received  satis- 
faction of  their  soundness  in  the  faith,  and  Chris- 
tian i^ractice."  (Extracts  from  Synodical  Rec- 
ords, 1832,  ut  supra,  vol.  3,  p.  240.) 

We  are  certain,  therefore,  that  open  commun- 
ion among  Presbyterians  is  of  recent  origin,  and 
contrary  to  the  well  known  history  of  Presbyte- 
rianism.  So  much  so  that  Dr.  David  Montfort 
says :  '  'As  to  how  far  catholic  or  open  communion 
has  been  practiced,  I  am  not  very  accurately  in- 
formed. The  language  of  the  divines  of  Westmin- 
ster afford  no  evidence  to  me  that  it  was  sustained 
by  them.  It  is  very  certain  that  four  different 
denominations  subscribing  this  same  confession 
of  faith,  and  adhering  most  tenaciously  to  it,  dis- 
countenanced the  practice  altogether.  I  am  ex- 
ceeding happy  to  be  informed  that  in  the  Synod 
of  Pittsbm-g,  where  in  our  great  struggle,  Pres- 
byterianism  prevailed  in  its  greatest  purity,  it  is 
not  generally  practiced.  The  practice  is  of  re- 
cent date.  My  own  recollection,  and  the  testi- 
mony of  older  men,  assure  me  that  the  practice 
of  our  forefathers  was  exceedingly  strict.  That 
it  was  rarely,  if  at  all,  the  case  with  them  for 
their  own  members  to  commune  out  of  the  i)ar- 
ticular  church  to  which  they  belonged.  That  a 
sojourner  was  not  admitted  except  on  a  certifi- 
cate of  his  good  standing  in  his  own  church.    So 


108  CLOSE  COMMUNION, 

far  were  our  forefathers  from  the  present  prac- 
tice of  laxness  in  this  day." 

From  the  above  history  Presbyterians  can 
hardly  censure  the  Baptists  for  being  close  com- 
munionists.  We  have  no  close  communion  rec- 
ord like  this.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  Presby- 
terians concede  all  we  claim  as  to  the  terms  of 
communion,  and  further  declare  that  we  are  con- 
sistent in  our  practice. 


THE  CONGREGATIONALISTS.  109 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  TERMS  OF  COMMUNION  IN  THE  CONGREGA- 
TIONAL CHURCH.     ARE  THE  CONGREGATION- 
ALISTS CLOSE  COMMUNIONISTS? 

I  PRESENT  the  testimony  that  the  Congrega- 
I  tionalists  have  the  same  terms  of  approach 
to  the  Lord's  table  as  have  the  Baptists. 

The  Congregationalists  require  conversion, 
baptism,  church  membership  as  prerequisites  to 
the  Lord's  Supper.  This  we  learn  from  various 
sources. 

Dr.  Henry  M.  Dexter  says:  "  Only  members  in 
good  standing  in  the  visible  church,  have  a  right 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  (Congrega- 
tionalism, p.  163.) 

George  P.  Fisher,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesi- 
astical History  in  Yale  University,  says:  "After 
the  rite  of  baptism  had  been  administered,  they 
gathered  in  an  assembly  for  common  prayer. 
Then  they  saluted  one  another  with  a  kiss;  and 
the  service  concluded  with  the  administration  of 
the  communion,  prayers  and  thanksgiving,  to 
which  the  congregation  responded  '  amen,'  form- 
ing a  part  of  the  service. "  (Begin.  Christ. ,  p.  566. ) 

Dr.  Dwight,  President  of  Yale  College,  says: 
"  It  is  an  indispensable  qualification  for  this  or- 


110  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

dinance  that  the  candidate  for  communion  be  a 
member  of  the  visible  church  in  full  standing. 
By  this  I  intend  that  he  should  be  a  man  of  piety; 
that  he  should  have  made  a  public  profession  of 
religion,  and  that  he  should  have  been  baptized." 
(Syst.  Theol. ,  Ser.  160,  B.  8,  ch.  4,  sec.  7,  vol.  4, 
pp.  365,  366.) 

The  Indejjendent,  one  of  the  most  widely  circu- 
lated, and  perhaps  the  most  influential  Pedobap- 
tist  paper  in  the  country,  in  an  editorial,  says: 
' '  Leading  writers  of  all  denominations  declare 
that  converts  must  be  baptized  before  they  can 
be  invited  to  the  communion  table.  This  is  the 
position  generally  taken.  But  Baptists  regard- 
ing sprinkling  a  nullity — no  baptism  at  all — look 
upon  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  and  others,  as 
unbaptized  persons. "  ' '  The  other  churches  can- 
not urge  the  Baptists  to  become  open  commun- 
ionists  till  they  themselves  take  the  position  that 
all  who  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  unbap- 
tized as  well  as  the  baj^tized,  may  be  invited  to 
the  communion  table."    (Editorial,  July,  1879.) 

These  authorities  prove  beyond  a  doubt  that 
Congregationalists  demand  of  communicants  the 
same  qualifications  as  do  the  Baptists. 

The  Congregationalists  teach  that  Pedobap- 
tists  are  close  communionists,  and  that  the  Bap- 
tists are  consistent  in  their  practice. 

The  Congregationalist,  the  organ  of  the  New 
England  Congregational  Churches,  says :  ' '  Con- 


THE  CONGREGATIONALISTS.  Ill 

gregationalists  have  uniformly,  until  here  and 
there  an  exception  has  arisen  of  late  years,  re- 
quired baptism  and  church  membership  as  the 
prerequisite  of  a  seat  at  the  table  of  the  Lord. 
It  is  a  part  of  the  false  '  liberality '  which  now 
prevails  in  certain  quarters,  to  welcome  '  every- 
body who  thinks  he  loves  Christ '  to  commune  in 
his  body  and  blood.  Such  a  course  is  a  first  step 
in  breaking  down  that  distinction  between  the 
church  and  the  world,  which  our  Saviour  empha- 
sized; and  it  seems  to  us  it  is  an  unwise  and  mis- 
taken act  for  which  no  Scripture  warrant  ex- 
ists."   (Editorial,  July  9th,  1879.) 

Rev.  G.  W.  Wright  says:  "The  intelligent  con- 
sistent defence  of  close  communion  on  the  part 
of  the  Baptists  does  not  proceed  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  immersed  persons  are  the  only  regen- 
erated believers;  but  they  base  their  refusal  to 
invite  unbaptized  persons  to  the  Lord's  table  on 
the  same  grounds  of  order  and  expediency  on 
which  other  denominations  refuse  to  invite  un- 
baptized persons  to  commune  with  them."'  (Bib- 
liotheca  Sacra  for  1874.) 

The  Independent  says:  '"We  have  never  been 
disposed  to  charge  the  Baptist  churches  with  any 
special  narrowness  or  bigotry  in  their  rule  of  ad- 
mission to  the  Lord's  table.  We  do  not  see  how 
it  differs  from  that  commonly  admitted  and  -es- 
tablished among  Presbyterian  churches."' 

Said  Henry  Ward  Beecher,   in  the   Christian 


112  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Union:  "A  Pedobaptist,  who  believes  that  bap- 
tism is  prerequisite  to  communion,  has  no  right 
to  censure  the  Baptist  churches  for  close  com- 
munion. On  this  question,  there  is  a  great  deal 
of  pulling  out  of  motes  by  people  whose  own 
vision  is  not  clear."  In  another  issue  of  the  same 
paper  he  says:  "We  have  no  disposition  to  join 
in  the  censure  which  is  so  freely  bestowed  upon 
Baptists  for  their  principle  and  practice  of  re- 
stricted communion.  Their  course  on  this  ques- 
tion, however  mistaken,  is  certainly  consistent, 
and  we  must  yield  them  the  respect  due  to  all 
who  adhere  firmly  to  their  conscientious  convic- 
tions." 

The  Advance,  of  Chicago,  in  an  editorial,  No- 
vember 10th,  1868,  says:  "As  to  the  question  of 
invitation  to  the  Lord's  table,  while  sympathiz- 
ing with  much  that  is  urged  in  favor  of  separa- 
ting that  ordinance  from  church  membership,  and 
throwing  it  open  to  all  upon  their  individual  re- 
sponsibility after  due  warning,  we  have  not  yet 
seen  our  wa^'"  clear  to  adopt  that  view.  Neither 
New  Testament  practice,  nor  a  wise  regard  to 
the  effect,  appear  to  us  to  favor  such  a  method. 
The  mode  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, the  apostolic  explanations  and  instructions, 
and  the  primitive  practice,  agree  in  presenting  it 
as  an  ordinance  of  the  church  distinctively — 
standing  as  one  of  the  two  sacraments  which 
mark  and  bless  the  professed  disciples  of  Christ. 


THE  CONGREGATIONALISTS.  113 

Besides,  the  idea  of  each  participant  coming  as 
an  individual  soul,  upon  his  own  responsibility 
merely,  robs  the  ordinance  of  its  distinctive  or- 
ganic meaning  as  a  supper — that  is,  a  joint  meal 
of  the  members  of  a  family,  and  not  the  catching 
up  of  a  morsel  by  hungry  strangers  who  com- 
pose a  chance  crowd.'' 

Listen  again  to  the  testimony  of  an  eminent 
Congregationalist,  Rev.  Dr.  Woolcot  Caulkins,  in 
the  Andover  Revieiv:  "It  has  never  been  denied 
that  the  Puritan  way  of  maintaining  the  purity 
and  doctrinal  soundness  of  the  churches  is  to 
secure  a  soundly  converted  membership.  There 
is  one  denomination  of  Puritans  which  has  never 
deviated  a  hair's  bi'eadth  from  this  way.  The 
Baptists  have  always  insisted  that  regenerate 
persons  only  ought  to  receive  the  sacraments  of 
the  church.  And  they  have  depended  absolutely 
upon  this  provision  for  the  purity  and  doctrinal 
soundness  of  their  churches.  They  are  strictly 
Congregational  in  polity.  But  they  have  never 
imposed  a  creed  test  for  membership.  It  is  true 
that  they  have  adopted  in  general  confessions 
various  standards — a  recension  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  (Philadelphia,  1742),  and  the  New 
Hampshire  Confession  (1833),  and  some  churches 
have  confessions  of  their  own.  But  they  ex- 
pressly repudiate  the  imposition  of  any  formal 
creed  upon  any  church  or  upon  any  member." 

To  the  question  whether  Baptists  have  failed 


114  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

to  maintain  sound  doctrine,  Dr.  Caulkins  replies 
by  quoting  the  words  of  Dr.  J.  L.  Withrow,  Pres- 
byterian, Boston :  "I  suppose  there  is  not  a  de- 
nomination— I  speak  in  no  fulsome  praise,  but 
literally — I  think  there  is  not  a  denomination  of 
Evangelical  Christians  that  is  throughout  as 
sound  theologically  as  the  Baptist  denomination. 
I  believe  it.  After  carefully  considering  it,  I 
believe  I  speak  the  truth.  Sound  as  my  own  de- 
nomination is,  sound  as  some  others  are,  and  I 
do  not  cast  unfriendly  reflections  upon  any  par- 
ticular denomination,  I  do  say,  in  my  humble 
judgment,  there  is  not  an  Evangelical  denomina- 
tion in  America  to-day  that  is  as  true  to  the  sim- 
ple, plain  Gospel  of  God,  as  it  is  recorded  in  the 
Word,  as  the  Baptist  denomination." 

High  praise,  this. 

The  practice  of  Congregationalists  has  been 
against  open  communion.  They  passed  in  Amer- 
ica the  most  stringent  laws  against  cJther  denomi- 
nations. They  had  scarcely  landed  in  New  Eng- 
land until  they  were  burning  witches,  whipping 
and  banishing  Baptists.  In  1644,  the  General 
Court  of  Massachusetts  passed  an  act  in  which  it 
was  said:  "Forasmuch  as  experience  hath  plen- 
tifully shown  and  often  proven  that  since  the 
rising  of  the  Anabaptists,  about  one  hundred 
years  since,  they  have  been  the  incendiaries  of 
the  commonwealths,  and  the  infectors  of  persons 
in  matters  of    religion,    and    the  troublers   of 


THE  CONGREGATIONALTSTS.  115 

churches  in  all  places  where  they  have  been, 
and  that  they  who  have  held  that  the  baptizing 
of  infants  unlawful,  have  usually  held  other 
errors  or  heresies,  together  with,  though  they 
have  concealed  the  same  till  they  have  spied  out 
a  fit  advantage  and  opportunity  to  vent  them  by 
way  of  scruple  or  question  *  *  *  it  is  ordered 
and  agreed  that,  if  any  person  or  persons,  within 
this  jurisdiction,  shall  either  openly  condemn  or 
oppose  the  baptizing  of  infants,  or  go  about 
secretly  to  induce  others  from  approbation  or 
use  thereof  *  *  *  every  such  person  shall  be 
sentenced  to  banishment." 

This  punishment  was  visited  upon  many. 
"Baptists,"  says  Fisher,  who  is  himself  a  Con- 
gregationalist,  "were  stigmatized  as  '  schismati- 
cal  persons,  filled  with  the  new-fangled  conceits 
of  their  heredical  inventions. ' "  (Fisher's  Church 
Hist.,  p.  476.)  So  late  as  1679  there  was  a  law 
passed  against  Baj^tists  being  permitted  to  build 
houses  of  worship.  And  when  the  First  Baptist 
Church  of  Boston  erected  a  house  a  Synod  met 
the  following  September  and  gave  it  as  its  opin- 
ion that  "the  cause  of  the  judgments  of  God 
upon  the  land  was  the  allowing  of  those  Baptists 
to  worship  by  themselves;  "  therefore  their  meet- 
ing house  was  nailed  up,  by  order  of  the  court, 
in  March,  1680,  and  Dr.  Increase  Mather  pub- 
lished a  book  in  which  he  said  that  ' ' Antipedo- 
baptism  was  a  blasted  error." 


116  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

At  the  period  of  the  Revolutionary  War  Dr. 
George  P.  Fisher  says:  "In  places  where  no  con- 
gregations had  been  gathered  by  dissidents  from 
the  prevailing  system,  individuals,  whatever 
their  religious  belief  might  be,  were  compelled 
to  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  Congrega- 
tional worship  there  existing.  This  requirement 
was  more  and  more  counted  a  hardship.  It  is 
believed  that  in  all  of  the  colonies  there  were  reli- 
gious tests  in  some  form.  Even  in  Pennsylvania 
and  Delaware,  none  could  vote  save  those  w^ho 
professed  faith  in  Christ.  When  the  revolution- 
ary contest  began,  it  was  natural  that  there 
should  spring  up  movements  to  abolish  the  reli- 
gious inequalities  which  were  a  heritage  from 
the  past.  The  Baptists,  who  were  outnumbered 
by  none  of  the  religious  bodies  except  the  Con- 
gregationalists,  and  who  had  felt  themselves 
especially  aggrieved,  at  once  bestirred  them- 
selves in  Massachusetts  and  Virginia  to  secure 
the  rejDeal  of  obnoxious  restrictions."  (Church 
Hist.,  pp.  559,  560.) 

Those  who  settled  New  York  were  as  rigid  in 
their  opinions  as  their  New  England  brethren. 
"In  1656  it  was  ordained  that  all  parishes  should 
be  forbidden  to  hold  conventicles  not  in  harmony 
with  the  established  religion  as  set  forth  by  the 
Synod  of  Dort.  Fines  were  imposed  on  every 
preacher  who  broke  this  law,  and  on  every  one 


THE  CONGREGATIONALISTS.  117 

who  should  attend  a  meeting  thus  prohibited." 
(See  Fisher's  Ch.  Hist.,  p.  477.) 

With  a  history  as  intolerant  as  this,  Puritan- 
ism, or  as  it  was  afterwards  called  Congrega- 
tionalism, could  hardly  say  anything  against 
Baptist  Close  Communion.  We  never  banished 
any  one,  we  have  never  unchristianized  any  one, 
all  we  have  asked  is  that  we  shall  quietly,  in  the 
fear  of  God,  be  allowed  to  regulate  our  own 
affairs. 


118  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  TERMS  OF  COMMUNION  IN   THE  METHODIST 

CHURCH.       ARE    THE    METHODISTS    CLOSE 

COMMUNIONISTS?      THE    WESLEYS 

AND  DR.  COKE. 

THE  Methodist  Church,  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  Baptists,  requires  baptism  as  a  pre- 
requisite to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Methodist 
Discipline,  Article  16,  lays  down  the  order  upon 
which  I  have  been  insisting:  "There  are  two 
sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the 
gospel;  that  is  to  say.  Baptism  and  the  Supper 
of  the  Lord." 

Dr.  Hibbard  says:  "It  is  certain  that  baptism 
is  enjoined  as  the  first  public  duty  after  disciple- 
ship;  or,  it  may  be  regarded  as  the  very  act  it- 
self, or  process,  of  visible  discipleship.  The  very 
position,  therefore,  that  baptism  is  made  to  oc- 
cupy, in  a  relation  to  a  course  of  Christian  duty, 
viz.,  at  the  commencement,  sufficiently  estab- 
lishes the  conclusion  that  the  ordinance  of  the 
supper,  and  all  other  observances  which  have  an 
exclusive  reference  to  the  Christian  profession, 
must  come  in  as  subsequent  duties."  (Hibbard 
on  Baptism,  pp.  176,  177.) 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says:   "As  no  person  could 


THE  METHODISTS.  119 

partake  of  the  paschal  lamb  before  he  was  cir- 
cumcised (Ex.  12:43-48),  so,  among  the  early- 
followers  of  God,  no  person  was  permitted  to 
come  to  the  eucharist  till  he  had  been  baptized." 
(Works,  vol.  3,  pp.  149,  150.) 

Dr.  Bennett  in  his  recent  able  work  on  Archae- 
ology makes  a  similar  statement.  His  work  is 
edited  and  endorsed  by  two  other  able  Method- 
ists, one  of  w^hom  is  a  bishop — George  R.  Crooks 
and  Bishop  John  M.  Hurst.  Here  is  the  com- 
bined authority  of  three  of  the  foremost  men  in 
that  denomination  in  this  country.  It  is  further 
stated  that  the  theology  of  the  volume  is  in 
' '  harmony  with  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. "  Dr.  Bennett  says : 
' '  None  but  the  believers  or  the  baptized  are  ad- 
mitted to  the  meal — to  feast  on  the  flesh  and 
blood  of  Jesus  who  was  made  flesh. "  (Archae- 
ology, p.  419.) 

The  history  of  the  Methodist  Church  is  one  of 
close  communion.  There  are  no  people  more 
rigid  in  their  requirements.  If  the  Discipline  is 
enforced,  I  know  no  one  except  a  Methodist  who 
can  approach  their  table.  Perhaps  the  facts  I 
here  present  from  their  foremost  bishops,  writ- 
ers and  scholars  will  surprise  you. 

The  entire  Wesley  family  were  violently  op- 
posed to  all  dissenters  from  the  established 
Church  of  England.  They  could  not  tolerate 
Baptists  and  Presbyterians,  and  indeed  did  not 


120  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

fellowship  any  outside  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 
Herbert  S.  Skeats  says  of  the  father  of  Mr.  John 
Wesley:  "His  father  had  not  only  conformed  to 
the  church,  but  was  one  of  the  most  bitter,  un- 
scrupulous, and  malignant  opponents  of  dissent. " 
(History  Free  Churches  of  England,  p.  24. ) 

John  Wesley  was  violent  in  his  opposition  to 
others.  He  says  very  plainly  that  baptism  pre- 
cedes communion.  In  a  sermon  which  he 
preached  upon,  ' '  Do  this  in  remembrance  of 
me,"  he  laid  down  baptism  as  a  prerequisite  to 
communion.  (Wesley's  Sermons,  vol.  4,  p.  153.) 
In  his  Journal,  vol.  1,  p.  188,  he  says:  "In  the 
ancient  church  every  one  who  was  baptized  com- 
municated daily."  No  Baptist  ever  insisted 
upon  this  doctrine  more  strongly  than  did  Mr. 
Wesley. 

In  practice  Mr.  Wesley  was  as  strict  as  any 
high-churchman  in  the  land.  Communicating 
upon  a  letter  received  from  one  J.  M.  Bolzins,  he 
says:  "And  yet  this  very  man,  when  I  was  in 
Savannah,  did  I  refuse  to  admit  to  the  Lord's 
table,  because  he  was  not  baptized  by  a  minister 
who  had  been  episcopally  ordained.  Can  any 
one  carry  high-church  zeal  farther  than  this?  " 
(Journal,  vol.  1,  p.  466.)  I  should  not  only  say 
that  the  door  was  closed,  but  locked  and  barred. 

Wesley  wrote  his  brother-in-law,  Wesley  Hall, 
in  1745:  "We  believe  it  would  not  be  right  for  us 
to  administer  either  baj^tism  or  the  Lord's  Sup- 


THE  METHODISTS.  121 

per,  unless  we  had  a  commission  so  to  do  from 
those  bishops  whom  we  apprehend  to  be  in  a 
succession  from  the  apostles. "  (Tyerman's  Life 
and  Times  of  Wesley,  vol.  1,  p.  496.) 

Here  is  another  specimen  of  close  communion. 
It  occurred  in  Norwich,  England,  April  1st,  1759, 
Mr.  Wesley  says:  "I  met  all  at  six,  requiring 
every  one  to  show  his  ticket  when  he  came  in;  a 
thing  they  never  had  heard  of  before.  I  likewise 
insisted  on  another  strange  regulation;  that  the 
men  and  women  should  sit  apart.  A  third  was 
made  the  same  day.  It  had  been  a  custom  ever 
since  the  tabernacle  was  built,  to  have  the  gal- 
leries full  of  spectators  while  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  administered.  This  I  judged  highly  im- 
proper and  therefore  ordered  none  to  be  admit- 
ted, but  those  who  desired  to  communicate." 
(Journal,  vol.  2.  ji.  17.) 

About  this  time  Mr.  Wesley  rebaptized  five 
Presbyterians,  and  called  their  baptism  lay  bap- 
tism, because  they  had  not  been  episcopally  or- 
dained. I  will  let  Bishop  McTyeire.  recite  this 
interesting  occurrance.  Says  the  Bishop:  "In- 
credible as  it  may  seem,  John  Wesley,  in  that 
very  church,  a  few  days  afterward  solemnly  and 
rather  demonstratively  rebaptized  five  Presby- 
terians, who  had  received  lay  haptism  in  their 
infancy — that  is,  in  the  jargon  of  apostolic  suc- 
cession, they  had  been  baptized  by  Dissenting 
ministers— 7wssi!f>?j/  by  his  own  grandfather,  Dr. 


122  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Annesley.  Charles,  about  the  same  tune,  gave 
episcopal  baptism  to  a  wom.an  who  was  dissatis- 
fied with  her  lay  baptism;  denominating  the  or- 
dinance '  hypothetical  baptism ' — that  is,  Chris- 
tian baptism,  provided  the  former  administration 
of  the  ordinance  by  a  Dissenting  minister  were 
not  in  accordance  with  the  mind  of  God."  (Mc- 
Tyeire's  Hist.  Method.,  pp.  147,  148.) 

That  ought  to  be  close  enough  to  satisfy  our 
Presbyterian  brethren. 

I  read  in  Tyerman's  Oxford  Methodists,  preface, 
page  vi:  "Even  in  Georgia,  Wesley  excluded 
Dissenters  from  the  holy  communion,  on  the 
ground  that  they  had  not  been  properly  bap- 
tized, and  he  would  himself  baptize  only  by  im- 
mersion, unless  the  child  or  person  was  in  a 
weak  state  of  health." 

Skeats  gives  a  somewhat  somber  account  of 
this  memorable  trip  of  Mr.  Wesley  to  Georgia. 
He  says:  "He  went  there  with  a  noble  and  self- 
sacrificing  purpose,  but  with  all  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical tendencies  of  a  High  Churchman,  com- 
bined with  a  somewhat  superstitious  faith  in 
what  may  be  described  as  Christian  magic.  In- 
stances of  the  latter  may  be  found  in  the  whole 
of  his  journals.  The  first  occurs  in  his  voyage 
to  Georgia.  A  woman  who  thought  she  was 
dying,  wished  to  receive  the  communion.  'At 
the  hour  of  receiving, '  says  Wesley,  '  she  began 
to  recover,  and  in  a  few  days  was  entirely  out  of 


THE  METHODISTS.  123 

danger. '  One  of  his  first  acts  of  ministerial  duty 
in  Georgia  was  to  baptize  an  infant.  '  The  child 
was  ill,'  remarks  Wesley,  'then,  but  recovered 
from  that  houi". '  His  visit  to  America  was  a  fail- 
ure, and  his  rigid  and  priestly  adherence  to  the 
rubrics  of  the  Established  Church,  which  brought 
ujjon  liim  a  law-suit,  ultimately  compelled  his 
return  to  England."  (Hist.  Free  Churches  of 
Eng.,  pp.  252,  253.) 

In  fact,  so  severe  was  Mr.  Wesley  that  he  was 
accused  of  being  a  papist.  Southey,  who  wrote 
a  standard  life  of  Wesley,  says:  "He  was  ac- 
cused of  making  his  sermons  so  many  satires 
upon  particular  persons,  and  for  this  cause  his 
auditors  fell  off;  for,  though  one  might  have  been 
very  well  pleased  to  hear  the  others  preached 
at,  no  person  liked  the  chance  of  being  made  the 
mark  himself.  All  the  quarrels  which  had  oc- 
curred since  his  arrival  were  occasioned,  it  was 
affirmed,  by  his  intermeddling  conduct.  '  Beside, ' 
said  a  plain  speaker,  to  him,  'the  people  say 
they  are  Protestants;  but  as  for  you,  they  can- 
not tell  what  religion  you  are  of:  they  never 
heard  of  such  religion  before,  and  they  do  not 
know  what  to  make  of  it.'  "  (Southey's  Life  of 
Wesley,  vol.  1,  p.  115.)  In  fact,  "he  was  looked 
upon,"  says  Tyerman,  "as  a  Roman  Catholic — 
(1)  Because  he  rigidly  excluded  all  Dissenters 
from  the  holy  communion,  until  they  first  gave 
up  their  faith  and  principles,  and,  like  Richard 


124  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Turner  and  his  sons,  submitted  to  be  rebaptized 
by  him;  (2)  Because  Roman  Catholics  were  re- 
ceived by  him  as  saints;  (3)  Because  he  endeav- 
ored to  establish  and  enforce  confession,  pen- 
ance, and  mortification;  mixed  wine  with  water 
at  the  sacrament;  and  appointed  deaconesses  in 
accordance  with  what  he  called  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions.  He  was  in  fact,  a  Puseyite,  an 
hundred  years  before  Dr.  Pusey  was  born. "  (Life 
of  Wesley,  vol.  1,  pp.  147,  148.)  And  Wesley  con- 
fessed that  for  ten  years  he  was  a  papist  and 
knew  it  not. 

Of  the  Oxford  Methodists  the  late  Bishop  Mc- 
Tyeire,  of  the  Southern  Methodist  Church,  says: 
"He  maintained  the  doctrine  of  apostolic  suc- 
cession, and  believed  no  one  had  authority  to 
administer  the  sacraments  who  was  not  episco- 
pally  ordained.  He  religiously  observed  saint- 
days  and  holidays,  and  excluded  Dissenters  from 
the  holy  communion,  on  the  ground  that  they 
had  not  been  properly  baptized.  He  observed 
ecclesiastical  discipline  to  the  minutest  points, 
and  was  scrupulously  strict  in  practicing  rubrics 
and  canons  ^'  *  *  Sacramentarian,  ritualist, 
legalist:  What  lack  I  yet?"  (Hist.  Methodism, 
p.  62.) 

Bishop  McTyeire  sums  Wesley  up  as  a  close 
communionist  of  the  strictest  character.  Meth- 
odists do  not  get  open  communion  from  Mr. 
Wesley.    Says  the  Bishop :  ' '  Following  a  primi- 


THE  METHOniRTR.  125 

five  but  obsolete  rubric,  he  would  baptize  chil- 
dren only  by  immersion ;  nor  could  he  be  induced 
to  depart  from  this  mode  unless  the  parents 
would  certify  that  the  child  was  weakly.  Per- 
sons were  not  allowed  to  act  as  sponsors  who 
were  not  communicants.  No  baptism  was  recog- 
nized as  valid  unless  performed  by  a  minister 
episcopally  ordained;  and  those  who  had  allowed 
their  children  to  be  baptized  in  any  other  manner 
were  earnestly  exhorted  to  have  them  rebap- 
tized.  His  rigor  extended  even  so  far  as  to  re- 
fuse the  Lord's  Supper  to  one  of  the  most  devout 
men  of  the  settlement,  who  had  not  been  bap- 
tized by  an  episcopally  ordained  minister;  and 
the  burial  service  itself  was  denied  to  such  as 
died  with  what  he  deemed  unorthodox  baptism. " 
(Hist.  Method.,  p.  90.) 

The  Baptists  never  did  require  as  much  as  is 
here  demanded.  Mr.  Wesley  demanded  baptism, 
even  insisted  that  communicants  must  be  bap- 
tized by  a  minister  episcopally  ordained.  He 
excluded  from  his  table  all  Dissenters,  that  is  to 
say  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  and  others,  w^ould 
not  permit  spectators,  and  required  a  ticket  for 
admission.  ' '  Can  any  one  carry  high-church  zeal 
farther  than  this?  " 

Charles  Wesley  was  even  more  violent  in  his 
feelings  than  was  John  Wesley.  He  wrote  to  one 
of  his  best  friends  that  he  would  rather  see  him 
"smilinor  in  his  coffin"'  than  to  see  him  a  dissent- 


126  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

ing  (or  Presbyterian)  preacher.  Bishop  Mc- 
Tyeire  says:  "His  high-church  feelings  could 
hardly  endure  the  innovation  of  lay  preaching; 
but  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  by  men 
not  episcopally  ordained  was  quite  out  of  the 
question;  it  would  make  Dissenters  out  of  them 
ipso  facto,  and  bring  on  separation.  He  wrote  to 
John  Nelson:  'John,  I  love  thee  from  my  heart; 
yet,  rather  than  see  thee  a  Dissenting  minister, 
I  wish  to  see  thee  smiling  in  thy  coffin. '  *  *  * 
Yet  this  good  man — this  primitive  Methodist — 
was  so  wedded  to  the  Established  Church  that 
unless  John  Nelson,  and  others  like  him,  could 
be  'episcopally  ordained'  he  would  rather  see 
John  '  smiling  in  his  coffin '  than  upon  a  Presby- 
lerial  ordination  administer  baptism  or  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  a  Methodist  congregation." 
(Hist.  Method.,  pp.  181,  182.) 

He  not  only  said  he  would  rather  see  his 
friend  "  smiling  in  his  coffin"  than  to  see  him  a 
Presbyterian  preacher;  but  he  likewise  said  he 
would  rather  see  his  children  Roman  Catholics 
than  Dissenters.  Skeats  says:  "Charles,  who 
was  always  '  harping  on  the  Established  Church, ' 
remarked  that  he  would  sooner  see  his  children 
Roman  Catholics  than  Protestant  Dissenters. 
He  applied,  publicly,  in  one  of  his  sermons,  the 
shipwreck  of  Paul  to  the  difficulty  of  being  saved 
out  of  the  Church  of  England."  (Hist.  Free 
Churches  of  Eng.,  p.  382,) 


THE  METHODISTS.  127 

His  biographer  sums  up  his  life  in  these  words: 
* '  He  denied  the  validity  of  baptism  when  admin- 
istered by  any  except  the  Episcopal  clergy,  to 
whatever  section  of  the  church  universal  the  ad- 
ministrator might  belong;  calling  it  'lay  bap- 
tism, '  and  urging  upon  those  w^ho  had  received 
it  the  necessity  of  being  re-baptized.  Healthy 
children,  he  insisted  upon  baptizing  by  trine  im- 
mersion, plunging  them  three  times  into  the 
water."    (Jackson's  Life  of  Charles  Wesley,  vol. 

1.  p.  54.) 

Charles  Wesley  was  a  "close  communionist " 
with  a  vengeance.  Indeed,  I  have  shown  by  un- 
doubted authority  that  the  Avhole  Wesley  family 
were  close  communionists. 

The  first  Methodist  Conference  believed  as  Mr. 
Wesley  did  on  this  subject.  The  ten  preachers 
present  did  not  consider  themselves  as  having 
received  episcopal  ordination:  and  hence  had  no 
right  to  administer  baptism  or  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. To  this  end  they  passed  the  following 
rules:  "1.  Every  preacher  who  acts  in  connec- 
tion with  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  brethren  who  labor 
in  America  is  strictly  to  avoid  administering  the 
ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 

2.  All  people  among  whom  we  labor  are  to  be 
earnestly  exhorted  to  attend  the  church  (mean- 
ing, of  course,  the  Episcopal  church),  and  to  re- 
ceive the  ordinances  there;  but  in  a  i:)articular 
manner  to  j^ress  the  people  in  Maryland  and  Vir- 


128  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

ginia  to  the  observance  of  this  mmute."  (Mc- 
Tyeire's  Hist.  Meth.,  p.  276.) 

Previous  to  this  time  the  Methodists  did  not 
pretend  to  be  anything  except  a  society  in  the 
Church  of  England;  but  the  Revolutionary  War 
had  overthrown  that  Church  in  America.  The 
Methodists  were  thus  left  without  a  church  or 
ordinances.  An  appeal  was  made  to  Mr.  Wesley. 
He  hesitated.  At  length  Mr.  Wesley  selected  a 
young  man,  and  wrote  Dr.  Lowth,  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don, and  asked  for  his  ordination,  which  the 
Bishop  did  not  grant.  ' '  Thereupon,  on  August 
10,  1780,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  the  bishop,  pointing 
out  the  great  evil  he  had  done  to  spiritual  religion 
in  America  by  that  refusal.  Before  finishing  his 
letter,  Mr.  Wesley  thus  plainly  writes  his  mind: 
Your  lordship  did  not  see  good  to  ordain  the 
pious  young  man  I  recommended,  but  your  lord- 
ship did  see  good  to  ordain  and  send  into  Amer- 
ica other  persons  who  knew  something  of  Greek 
and  Latin,  but  who  knew  no  more  of  saving  souls 
than  of  catching  whales.  In  this  respect  I 
mourn  for  poor  America."  (McTyeire's  Hist. 
Method.,  p.  318.) 

On  account  of  this  peculiar  state  of  affairs  in 
America  there  was  great  strife  among  the  Meth- 
odists. Stevens  gives  this  account:  ' '  Meanwhile 
none  of  our  preachers  being  ordained,  the  socie- 
ties were  dependent  upon  the  clergy  of  the  Eng- 
lish church  in  this  country  for  the  sacraments. 


THE  METHODISTS.  129 

At  the  Revolution  most  of  these  left  the  country, 
and  the  Methodists  were  then  deprived  of  the 
sacraments.  Many  insisted  upon  having  them 
without  ordination.  A  general  strife  ensued,  a 
large  portion  of  the  Southern  church  revolted. 
A  compromise  was  effected  till  they  could  apply 
to  Mr.  Wesley  for  a  more  thorough  arrange- 
ment, with  powers  to  ordain  and  minister  the 
sacraments.  In  meeting  their  demand  he  or- 
dained and  sent  over  Dr.  Coke,  with  episcopal 
powers,  under  the  name  of  superintendent,  to 
ordain  Francis  Asbmy  a  'joint  superintendent" 
and  ordain  the  preachers  to  the  office  of  deacons 
and  elders."  (Church  Polity,  pp.  86,  87.)  But 
the  whole  thing  resulted  in  the  declaration  that 
baptism  administered  by  a  man  with  episcopal 
ordination  was  necessary  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  so-called  ordination,  mentioned  above, 
of  Dr.  Coke  by  Mr.  Wesley  is  one  of  the  stran- 
gest events  in  history;  but  it  reveals  a  chapter 
on  close  communion  unparalleled  in  the  history 
of  the  world. 

To  understand  these  matters  it  must  be  recol- 
lected that  Dr.  Coke  was  a  man  of  great  ambi- 
tion; and  the  obtaining  the  office  of  a  bishop 
seems  to  have  been  his  absorbing  aim.  I  msh  to 
state  that  only  which  can  be  clearly  proved. 
Tyerman,  who  is  himself  a  noted  Methodist, 
says:  "With  the  highest  respect  for  Dr.  Coke, 
and  his  general  excellences,  it  is  no  detraction  to 

9 


130  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

assert,  that  he  was  dangerously  ambitious,  and 
that  the  height  of  his  ambition  was  to  be  a 
bishop."     (Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  3,  p.  434.) 

Things  had  reached  such  a  pass  among  the 
Methodists  of  the  United  States  that  something 
must  be  done.  There  was  no  one  authorized 
among  them  to  administer  baptism  or  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Wesley  was  already  well  ad- 
vanced in  years,  and  so  Dr.  Coke  wrote  Mr. 
Wesley  proposing  to  go  to  America  for  him. 
Wesley  at  length  decided  to  make  Coke  ' '  super- 
intendent" of  the  work  in  America.  Such  a 
high-churchman  was  Dr.  Coke  that  he  appears 
to  have  had  scruples  whether  Mr.  Wesley  had 
any  such  power.  Stevens  says:  "When  Mr. 
Wesley  proposed  to  Dr.  Coke  his  ordination  to 
this  new  oliice,  some  six  or  seven  months  before 
it  was  confirmed,  the  doctor  was  startled  (as 
Drew  tells  us  in  his  life  of  Coke),  and  doubted 
Wesley's  authority  to  ordain  him,  as  Wesley  him- 
self was  not  a  bishop. "  (Church  Polit}^  pp.  92, 93. ) 

These  scruples  appear  to  have  speedily  passed 
away,  and  Dr.  Coke  was  not  only  anxious  to  be 
"  superintendent,*'  but  bishop  as  well.  He  then 
applied  to  Wesley  for  ordination,  but  Wesley 
possessed  no  such  power.  Tyermansays:  "There 
can  be  no  question  that  there  is  force  in  Dr. 
Whitehead's  critique,  that  'Dr.  Coke  had  the 
same  right  to  ordain  Mr.  Wesley,  that  Mr.  Wesley 
had  to  ordain  Dr.  Coke."  "    Our  author  continues: 


THE  METHODISTS.  131 

"The  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  is  a  perplexing 
puzzle.  Coke  had  been  already  ordained  a  dea- 
con and  a  jjriest  of  the  Church  of  England;  and 
hence,  his  ministerial  status  was  the  same  as 
Wesley's.  What  further  ordination  was  needed? 
Wesley  intended  none;  but  Coke  wished  it." 
(Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  3,  p.  432.) 

Upon  this  subject  Dr.  Whitehead,  who  wrote 
the  official  Life  of  Wesley,  says:  "That  the  per- 
son who  advised  the  measure,  would  be  proved 
to  have  been  a  felon  to  Methodism,  and  to  have 
struck  an  assassin's  knife  mto  the  vitals  of  its 
body."    (Hawk's  Eccl.  Hist.,  vol.  1,  p.  171.) 

Wesley  was  bitterly  opposed  to  the  office  of 
bishop.  In  a  letter  to  Francis  Asbury,  dated 
London,  September  20th,  1788,  he  says:  "How 
can  you,  how  dare  you  suffer  yourself  to  be  called 
a  bishop?  I  shudder  and  start  at  the  very 
thought.  Men  may  call  me  a  knave  or  a  fool;  a 
rascal,  a  scoundrel,  and  I  am  content:  but  they 
shall  never,  by  my  consent,  call  me  a  bishop. 
For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake, 
put  a  full  end  to  this." 

The  facts  are  these:  Wesley  wanted  some  one 
to  go  to  America,  and  Dr.  Coke  wanted  to  go. 
Dr.  Coke  stated  that  if  Wesley  would  send  him 
as  his  official  representative  he  would  be  received 
in  America.  To  this  end  Wesley  privately  laid 
his  hands  upon  Coke  and  called  him  "superin- 
tendent."   Wesley  did  not  ordain  him,  nor  any 


132  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

one  else,  bishop;  nor  was  Coke  called  a  bishop 
for  a  number  of  years,  and  never  by  Wesley's 
authority. 

Tyerman  undoubtedly  gives  a  correct  history 
of  this  affair.  He  says:  "Shall  Wesley  or  some 
one  else  go  from  England  to  give  them  ordina- 
tion? Wesley,  a  man  of  action,  decided  to  send 
Coke, and  Coke  consented;  but  before  starting,  he 
wished  to  have  an  additional  ordination  himself. 
What  was  that  ordination  to  be  ?  The  only  one 
possible  was  this.  Wesley  was  the  venerable 
father  of  the  15,000  Methodists  in  America.  He 
was  not  able  to  visit  them  himself;  but  sends 
them  Dr.  Coke.  The  doctor  pretends,  that  it  is 
more  than  possible,  that  some  of  the  American 
jjreachers  and  societies  will  refuse  his  authority. 
To  remove  this  objection,  Wesley,  at  Bristol,  in 
a  private  room,  holds  a  religious  service,  puts 
his  hands  upon  the  head  of  Coke,  and  (to  use  his 
own  words)  sets  him  apart  as  a  superintendent  of 
the  work  in  America,  atid  gives  him  a  written 
testimonial  to  that  effect.  This  was  all  that 
Wesley  did,  and  all  that  Wesley  meant;  but  we 
greatly  doubt  that  it  was  all  that  the  departing 
envoy  wished."    (Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  3,  p.  433.) 

Dr.  Coke  not  only  knew  that  Wesley  did  not 
ordain  him  a  bishop,  but  made  repeated  efforts 
to  be  made  a  bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  I 
shall  mention  some  of  these  attempts. 

Dr.  Coke  appealed  to  Bishop  White  of  Penn- 


THE  METHODISTS.  133 

sylvania  to  give  him  Episcopal  ordination.  Here 
is  a  part  of  his  letter  to  the  bishop :  "He  (Mr. 
Wesley)  did  indeed  solemnly  invest  me,  so  far  as 
he  had  the  right  so  to  do,  with  Episcopal  au- 
thority, but  did  not  intend,  I  think,  that  our  en- 
tire separation  should  take  place.  *  *  *  Our 
ordained  ministers  will  not,  ought  not,  to  give  up 
the  right  of  administering  the  sacraments:  I  do 
not  think  the  generality  of  them,  perhaps  none 
of  them,  would  refuse  to  submit  to  a  reordina- 
tion,  if  other  hinderances  (a  classical  education) 
were  removed  out  of  the  way. "  (White's  Memoirs 
of  the  Protestant  Epis.  Church,  pp.  424-9.)  He 
further  requested  that  Bishop  White  would  burn 
this  letter. 

Tyerman,  in  commenting  upon  this,  says: 
' '  Some  years  after  this,  Coke,  unknown  to  Wes- 
ley and  Asbury,  addressed  a  confidential  letter 
to  Dr.  White,  bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  Pennsylvania,  which,  if  it  meant  any- 
thing, meant  that  he  would  like  the  Methodists 
of  America  to  be  reunited  to  the  English  Church, 
on  condition  that  he  himself  was  ordained  to  be 
their  bishop."     (Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  3,  p.  434.) 

On  March  29th,  1799,  Dr.  Coke  wrote  the 
Bishop  of  London,  and  asked  him  for  episcopal 
ordination.  In  that  letter  he  says:  "A  very  con- 
siderable part  of  our  society  have  imbibed  a  deep 
prejudice  against  receiving  the  Lord's  Supper 
from   the   hands   of  immoral   clergymen.     The 


134  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

word  immoral  they  consider  in  a  very  extensive 
sense,  as  including  all  those  who  frequent  card- 
tables,  balls,  horse-racing,  theaters,  and  other 
places  of  fashionable  amusements.  I  have  found 
it  in  vain  to  urge  to  them  that  the  validity  of  the 
ordinance  does  not  depend  upon  the  piety  or  even 
the  morality  of  the  minister;  all  of  my  argu- 
ments have  had  no  effect.  In  consequence  of 
this,  petitions  were  sent,  immediately  after  the 
death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  from  different  Societies  to 
our  Annual  Conferences,  requesting  that  they 
might  receive  the  Lord's  Supper  from  their  own 
preachers,  or  such  as  Conference  might  appoint 
to  administer  it  to  them.  For  two  years  this 
point  was  com,batted  with  success;  but  some  of 
our  leading  friends  conceiving  that  a  few  exempt 
cases  might  be  allowed,  opposition  to  the  meas- 
ure was  overruled.  These  exempt  cases,  as  had 
been  foreseen,  annually  increased;  so  that  now 
a  considerable  number  of  our  body  have  deviated 
in  this  instance  from  the  Established  Church; 
and  I  plainly  perceive,  that  this  deviation,  un- 
less prevented,  will,  in  time,  bring  about  a  uni- 
versal separation  from  the  Establishment. 

"But  how  can  this  be  prevented?  I  am  inclined 
to  think,  that  if  a  given  number  of  our  leading 
preachers,  proposed  by  our  General  Conference, 
were  to  be  ordained,  and  permitted  to  travel 
through  our  connection,  and  administer  the  Sac- 
raments to  those  societies  who  have  been  thus 


THE  METHODISTS.  135 

prejudiced  as  above,  every  difficulty  would  be 
removed.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  jieople  would 
be  universally  satisfied.  The  men  of  greatest 
influence  in  the  connection  would,  I  am  sure, 
unite  with  me;  and  every  deviation  from  the 
Church  of  England  would  be  done  away. 

"In  a  letter  which  a  few  months  past  I  took 
the  liberty  of  writing  to  your  lordship,  on  the 
business  of  our  societies  in  Jersey,  I  observed, 
that  for  a  little  time  I  had  been  warped  from  my 
attachment  from  the  Church  of  England,  in  con- 
sequence of  my  visiting  the  States  of  America; 
but  like  a  bow  too  much  bent,  I  have  again  re- 
turned. But  I  return  with  a  full  conviction  that 
our  numerous  societies  in  America  w^ould  have 
been  a  regular  Presbyterian  church,  if  Mr.  Wes- 
ley and  myself  had  not  taken  the  steps  which  we 
judged  it  necessary  to  adopt."  (Drew's  Life  of 
Coke,  pp.  289,  290.)  The  Doctor  then  set  the 
time  that  he  would  call  upon  the  bishop  and  re- 
ceive ordination.  The  bishop  waited  nearly  a 
month  before  he  replied  to  this  letter,  then  de- 
clined to  accede  to  this  request,  and  stated  that 
if  they  had  "  such  tender  consciences  "  about  re- 
ceiving the  Lord's  Supper  from  ' '  immoral  men  " 
the  same  thing  ought  to  apply  to  ordination  as 
well. 

These  failures  did  not  discourage  him.  Almost 
to  the  hour  of  his  death.  Dr.  Coke  knocked  at 
the   Episcopal   door   for   ordination.     Tyerman 


136  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

gives  these  further  examples:  ''In  1794,  he  se- 
cretly summoned  a  meeting,  at  Litchfield,  of  the 
most  influential  of  English  preachers,  and  passed 
a  resolution,  that  the  conference  should  appoint 
an  order  of  bishops,  to  ordain  deacons  and  elders, 
he  himself,  of  course,  expecting  to  be  a  member 
of  the  prelatical  brotherhood.  And  again,  it  is 
a  well-known  fact,  that,  within  twelve  months  of 
his  lamented  death,  he  wrote  to  the  Earl  of 
Liverpool,  stating  that  he  was  willing  to  return 
most  fully  into  the  bosom  of  the  Established 
Church,  on  condition,  that  his  royal  highness 
the  Prince  Regent,  and  the  government  would 
appoint  him  their  bishop  in  India.  These  are 
unpleasant  facts;  which  we  would  rather  have 
consigned  to  oblivion,  had  they  not  been  neces- 
sary to  vindicate  Wesley  from  the  huge  incon- 
sistency of  ordaining  a  co-equal  presbyter  to  be 
a  bishop."  (Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  3,  pp.  434,  435.) 
The  point  I  make  is  very  clear.  Dr.  Coke  did 
not  think  a  man  that  had  not  received  Episcopal 
ordination  had  a  right  to  administer  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper.  In  fact  no  man's  high-church 
zeal  outran  his.  Drew  says  of  him:  "In  describ- 
ing the  character  of  the  clergy  of  America,  he 
seems  to  have  forgotten  that  he  was  still  an 
Englishman;  and  he  introduced  his  observations 
in  a  manner,  that  would  seam,  from  his  omitting, 
in  the  ardour  of  his  zeal,  the  restrictive  applica- 
tion, to  imply  an  universal  characteristic.     On 


THE  METHODISTS.  137 

the  subject  of  an  Episcopal  Establishment,  under 
the  immediate  auspices  of  the  State,  he  was 
equally  negligent  in  marking  the  peculiar  situa- 
tions of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States; 
and  he  seemed  hardly  to  be  aware  of  the  difficulty 
of  vindicating  the  appendages  of  monarchy  upon 
republican  ground,  or  of  expatiating  upon  the 
rights  of  independence  on  the  continent  without 
interfering  with  the  regulations  established  in 
his  native  land."    (Life  of  Coke,  p.  97.) 

The  very  Discipline  that  he  prepared  was  of 
the  closest  order.  This  is  found  in  it:  "Persons 
not  belonging  to  the  society  may  be  admitted, 
provided  they  procure  a  recommendation  from 
an  Elder  or  a  Deacon.  But  in  no  case  is  any  per- 
son to  be  admitted,  who  is  guilty  of  practices,  for 
which,  if  a  member  he  would  be  excluded  from  a 
Methodist  society. "  (Drew's  Life  of  Coke,  p.  1 13. ) 
The  plain  English  of  this  is:  An  outsider  may 
commune  with  us,  provided  he  is  willing  to  be  a 
Methodist. 


138  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  TERMS  OP  COMMUNION  IN  THE  METHODIST 
CHURCH.  ARE  THE  METHODISTS  CLOSE  COM- 
MUNIONISTS?  ASBURY  AND  HEDDING.  THE 
DISCIPLINE.  LIVING  BISHOPS.  WATSON  AND 
OTHERS. 

ASBURY,  who  was  the  second  bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Church,  was  likewise  a  "close 
communionist. "  He  had  serious  doubts  about  be- 
ing ordained  as  "superintendent"  by  Dr.  Coke. 
Dr.  Hawks  says:  "On  the  3d  of  November,  1784, 
Dr.  Coke  arrived  in  New  York,  and  on  the  14th 
met  Mr.  Asbury  for  the  first  time,  who,  upon 
learning  of  the  new  plan  expressed  strong  doubts 
concerning  it."  (Hist.  Eccl.  U.  S.,  vol.  1,  p.  166.) 
When  some  of  the  Methodists  had  revolted 
against  the  Episcopalians,  and  went  about  to  or- 
dain preachers  of  their  own,  it  was  Asbury  who 
opposed  and  finally  defeated  the  measure.  Says 
Drew :  ' '  Mr.  Asbury  in  the  meanwhile,  who  had 
not  yet  shaken  off  the  rusty  fetters  of  'Apostolic 
Succession,'  found  himself  comparatively  de- 
serted by  those  whose  respect  for  him  still  re- 
mained undiminished.  Against  the  illegality  of 
their  proceedings  he  bore  a  public  testimony, 
denying  the  authority  by  which  the  preachers 


THE  METHODISTS.  139 

acted,  and  declaring  the  ordination  to  which  they 
had  given  existence,  invalid.  With  individuals 
his  arguments  had  weight,  and  many  hesitated 
to  follow  the  measure  they  had  adopted.  In  this 
manner  he  proceeded,  until  he  had  proselyted 
some,  had  silenced  others,  and  had  shaken  the 
faith  of  all;  so  that  at  a  subsequent  conference, 
he  found  means  to  procure  a  vote,  which  declared 
the  former  ordination  unscriptural." 

It  will  thus  appear  that  Asbury,  like  Coke,  was 
a  believer  in  an  Episcopal  ordination  as  neces- 
sary for  the  administration  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

In  their  notes  on  the  Discipline  Asbury  and 
Coke  say:  "We  must  also  observe,  that  our 
elders  should  be  very  cautious  how  they  admit  to 
the  communion  persons  who  are  not  in  our  so- 
ciety. It  would  be  highly  injurious  to  our  breth- 
ren if  we  suffered  any  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  them  whom  we  would  not  readily 
admit  into  our  society  on  application  made  to  us. 
Those  whom  we  judge  unfit  to  partake  of  our 
profitable,  iirudential  means  of  grace,  we  would 
most  certainly  think  improper  to  be  partakers  of 
an  ordinance  which  has  been  expressly  instituted 
by  Christ  himself."  (History  of  the  Discipline, 
p.  377.) 

Now  if  this  bit  of  history  proves  anything,  it 
is,  that  the  Wesleys,  Coke  and  Asbury,  were  all 
close   communionists  in   the  strictest  sense   of 


140  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

that  term.  They  regarded  Baptists  and  Pres- 
byterians as  unbaptized,  excluded  Dissenters 
from  the  table,  and  were  zealous  for  all  other 
high-chui'ch  practices.  In  fact  for  seven  years 
after  its  organization  the  Methodist  Church  was 
without  the  sacraments,  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  simply  because  they  would  not  recognize 
any  save  Episcopal  ordination.  This  they  did 
not  have  and  could  not  get.  If  the  Methodists 
do  not  hold  these  things  to-day,  they  have  only 
the  Episcopalians  to  thank  for  not  bestowing 
upon  them  the  much  coveted  gift  of  Episcopal 
ordination. 

But  close  communion  did  not  stop  here.  The 
old  Discipline  was  very  stringent  in  its  require- 
ments. The  following  relates  to  the  Lord's 
Supper: 

"Question.  Are  there  any  directions  to  be 
given  concerning  the  administration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper? 

"Answer  1.  Let  those  who  liave  scrujiles  con- 
cerning the  receiving  of  it  kneeling,  be  permitted 
to  receive  it  either  standing  or  sitting. 

' '  2.  Let  no  person  that  is  not  a  member  of  our 
church  be  admitted  to  the  communion,  without 
examination,  and  some  token  given  by  an  elder 
or  deacon. 

"3.  No  person  shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  among  us,  who  is  guilty  of  any  practice 


THE  METHODTSTS.  141 

for  which  we  would  exclude  a  member  of  our 
church. " 

Certainly  no  Baptist  or  Presbyterian  would 
care  to  be  examined  by  an  "elder  or  deacon." 
Bishop  Hedding  in  mi  able  discourse  says  of 
these  rules:  "Is  it  proper  for  a  preacher  to  give 
out  a  general  invitation  in  the  congregation  to 
members  in  good  standing  in  other  churches  to 
come  to  the  Lord's  Supper?  "  To  this  the  Bishop 
gives  the  following  answer:  "No;  for  the  most 
unworthy  persons  are  apt  to  think  themselves  in 
good  standing,  and  sometimes  persons  who  are 
not  members  of  any  church  will  take  the  liberty 
from  such  an  invitation  to  come.  And  again, 
there  are  some  communities  called  churches, 
which,  from  heretical  doctrines  or  immoral  prac- 
tices, have  no  claim  to  the  j)rivileges  of  Chris- 
tians, and  ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  the  com- 
munion of  any  Christian  people.  The  rule  in 
that  case  is  as  follows:  2.  Let  no  person  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  communion  without  examination, 
and  some  token  given  by  an  elder  or  deacon. 
3.  No  person  shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  among  us  who  is  guilty  of  any  practice 
for  which  we  would  exclude  a  member  of  our 
church."  (Administration  of  the  Discipline,  pp. 
72,  73.) 

But  the  most  stringent  of  these  rules  is  still  in 
force.  The  Discipline  noio  says:  "No  person 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  among  us 


142  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

who  is  guilty  of  any  practice  for  which  we  would 
exclude  a  member  of  our  church."  (Discipline, 
1890,  sec.  408,  p.  257.) 

The  question  arises:  For  what  would  a  mem- 
ber be  excluded  from  the  Methodist  Church? 
The  Discipline  answers:  A  member  shall  be  ex- 
cluded for  endeavoring  "to  sow  dissension  in 
any  of  our  Societies  by  inveighing  against  either 
our  doctrine  or  discipline."  (Dis.,  1890,  sec.  283, 
p.  165.) 

It  is  said  of  a  traveling  preacher:  "What  shall 
be  done  with  those  ministers  or  preachers  who 
hold  and  disseminate,  publicly  or  privately,  doc- 
trines which  are  contrary  to  our  Articles  oi 
Religion? 

' '  Let  the  same  process  be  observed  as  in  the 
case  of  immorality."    (Sec.  260,  p.  152.) 

Now  read  this :  ' '  No  person  shall  be  admitted 
to  the  Lord's  Supper  among  us  who  is  guilty  of 
any  practice  for  which  we  would  exclude  a  mem- 
ber of  our  Church."    (Dis.,  sec.  408,  p.  257.) 

It  is  quite  certain  that  if  these  rules  were  en- 
forced that  no  one  save  a  Methodist  could  ap- 
proach a  Methodist  communion  table.  There 
are  many  things  a  Baptist  would  reject  in  the 
Discipline  and  Articles  of  Faith.  The  Presby- 
terians could  not  abide  the  Arminianism  and 
Episcopacy  of  the  book.  The  truth  is  that  a 
man  holding  the  Presbyterian  view  of  the  Scrip- 
tures  would    be    excluded    from    a    Methodist 


THE  METHODISTS.  143 

Church,  on  the  enforcement  of  these  rules,  as 
immoral.  And  the  Discipline  expressly  says  that 
if  a  man  holds  views  contrary  to  the  Articles  of 
Faith  he  shall  not  approach  the  Lord's  Table. 

I  suppose  that  no  creed  in  Christendom  has 
been  so  often  revised  and  radically  changed  as 
has  been  the  Methodist  Discipline.  With  all  of 
its  changes  and  emendations  it  is  still  a  close 
communion  book.  I  shall  mention  other  par- 
ticulars. 

1.  The  Methodists  are  exclusive  in  dress. 
"The  putting  on  of  gold  and  costly  aj^parel"  is 
jarbidden.   (Sec.  29,  p.  30.)  The  older  Discij)lines 

went  so  far  as  to  prescribe  the  cut  of  a  woman's 
bonnet  and  the  number  of  ruffles  on  her  dress. 

2.  The  Methodists  are  exclusive  in  their  class- 
meetings.  "Question  1.  What  directions  are 
given  concerning  class-meetings?  Answer  1.  Let 
the  membership  of  every  church,  wherever  it  is 
practicable,  be  divided  into  smaller  companies, 
called  classes,  according  to  their  respective 
places  of  abode;  and  let  the  members  be  exhorted 
to  attend  the  meeting  of  the  same."  (Sec.  229, 
p.  135.) 

3.  The  Methodists  are  exclusive  in  their  love 
feasts.  ' '  Question :  What  directions  are  given 
concerning  love  feasts?  Answer  1.  Love  feasts 
shall  be  held  quarterly,  or  at  such  other  times  as 
the  preacher  in  charge  may  consider  expedient, 
loith  closed  doors,  to  which,  besides  Church-mem- 


144  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

bers,  other  serious  persons  may  be  admitted  by 
him."     (Sec.  227,  p.  134.) 

4.  The  Methodist  church  is  exclusive  in  song 
books.  Let  the  people  "use  our  own  Hymn  and 
Tune  Books."     (Sec.  223,  p.  133.) 

5.  The  Methodist  church  is  exclusive  in  trad- 
ing. "  It  is  expected  of  all  who  continue  in  these 
societies  that  they  should  continue  to  evidence 
their  desire  of  salvation. 

' '  By  doing  good,  especially  to  them  that  are 
of  the  household  of  faith,  or  groaning  to  be 
SO ;  employing  them  preferably  to  others,  buying 
one  of  another,  helping  each  other  in  business; 
and  so  much  the  more  because  the  world  will 
love  its  own,  and  them  only.'''  (Sec.  29,  pp.  30,  31.) 

This  is  a  remarkable  case  of  boycotting. 

6.  The  Methodists  are  exclusive  in  their  Sun- 
day-schools. "Que.stion:  What  directions  shall 
be  given  concerning  Sunday-schools? 

"Answer  1.  Let  Sunday-schools  be  formed  in 
all  our  congregations  where  ten  persons  can  be 
collected  for  that  purpose;  and  let  mission 
schools  be  formed  wherever  practicable. 

"Answer  2.  Let  all  the  Sunday-schools  con- 
nected with  our  congregations  be  under  the  con- 
trol of  our  oion  church;  and  let  them  use  our  oivn 
Catechisms,  Question  Books,  and  j)eriodical  literature. 

"Answer  3.  The  Quarterly  Conference  of  each 
circuit  and  station  shall  he  a  Board  of  Managers, 
having  the  supervision  of  all  of  the  Sunday- 


THE  METHODISTS.  145 

schools  within  its  bounds.  It  shall  elect  at  the 
fourth  Quarterly  Conference  of  each  year,  on 
nomination  of  the  j^reacher  in  charge,  a  superin- 
tendent for  each  Sunday-school  under  its  care; 
provided,  that  when  a  vacancy  occurs  in  the  su- 
perintendency  of  any  Sunday-school  during  the 
interim  of  the  Quarterly  Conference,  the  preacher 
in  charge  shall  appoint  a  superintendent  to  serve 
until  the  meeting  of  the  next  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence: and  provided,  also,  that  the  preacher  in 
charge  shall  appoint  a  superintendent  for  any 
new  school  that  may  be  organized  between  the 
meetings  of  the  Quarterly  Conference. 

'  'Answer  4.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  preacher 
in  charge  of  every  circuit  and  station  to  be  pres- 
ent in  all  of  the  Sunday-schools  in  his  charge  as 
often  as  practicable,  to  catechise  the  children, 
to  preach  to  them  as  often  as  convenient,  to  ex- 
hort them  to  attend  regularly  upon  divine  ser- 
vice, to  see  that  they  are  instructed  in  the  doctrines 
and  usages  of  our  Church,  and  to  look  after  their 
spiritual  welfare  as  a  part  of  his  regular  pastoral 
charge.  He  shall  also  lay  before  the  Quarterly 
Conference,  at  each  quarterly  meeting,  to  be  en- 
tered upon  its  journal,  a  written  statement  of  the 
number  and  state  of  the  Sunday-school  in  his 
charge,  and  the  pastoral  instruction  of  children, 
and  make  a  report  of  the  same  to  his  Annual 
Conference." 

10 


146  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Everything  about  this  Sunday-school  has  the 
principle  of  close  communion. 

Here  are  six  specifications  of  close  commun- 
ion. They  cover  the  most  minute  details  of 
human  life,  even  down  to  the  minor  particular  of 
wearing-  apparel.  As  long  as  these  rules  and 
regulations  stand  on  the  Methodist  law  book  it 
does  not  become  them  to  discuss  Baptist  close 
commiuiion. 

It  is  so  understood  by  the  Bishops. 

Rev.  Thos.  Bowman,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  says: 

St.  Louis,  May,  31,  1892. 

Deai^  Brother:  The  following  are  the  words  we 
use,  when  inviting  people  to  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper:  "Ye  that  do  truly  and  ear- 
nestly repent  of  your  sins  and  are  in  love  and  in 
charity  with  your  neighbors  and  intend  to  lead  a 
new  life,  following  the  commandments  of  God 
and  walking  from  henceforth  in  his  holy  ways; 
draw  near  with  faith,  and  take  this  Holy  Sacra- 
ment to  your  comfort." 

Prom  this  you  will  see: 

1.  That  we  expect  those  who  come  to  be  Chris- 
tians. 

2.  We  suppose  them  to  be  baptized. 

3.  As  a  rule  we  expect  them  to  be  members  of 
some  church.  In  our  church,  those  who  are 
probationers  are  included. 

With  best  wishes  yours, 

Thos.  Bowmaxn, 


THE  METHODISTS.  147 

Rev.  E.  R.  Hendrix,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E. 
Church  South,  says: 

Kansas  City,  Mo.,  May  12tli,  1892. 
Mr.  J.  T.  Christian,  Jackson,  Miss. : 

Dear  Sir:  In  answer  to  yours  of  the  5th  inst. , 
which  cajne  during  my  absence  from  home,  I  will 
say  that  our  invitation  to  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
in  this  language :  ' '  Ye  that  do  truly  and  earnestly 
repent  of  your  sins,  and  are  in  love  and  charity 
with  your  neighbors,  and  intend  to  lead  a  new 
life,  following  the  commandments  of  God  and 
walking  from  henceforth  in  his  holy  ways,  draw 
near  with  faith,  and  take  the  holy  sacrament  to 
your  comfort,  and  make  your  humble  confession 
to  Almighty  God,  meekly  kneeling  upon  your 
knees." 

As  you  will  see  such  an  invitation  implies  a 
holy  life  which  is  supreme.  While  as  a  rule 
only  church  members  (which  means  baptized 
persons)  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  yet  where 
a  penitent  is  deeply  perplexed  and  is  slow  to 
obtain  pardon  for  his  sins,  a  wise  pastor  some- 
times brings  him  to  the  test  of  the  sacrament 
where  in  the  very  act  of  presenting  himself  there 
have  been  cases  of  happy  conversion,  the  weak 
faith  being  strengthened  by  the  outward  and 
visible  signs  which  enable  the  penitent  to  discern 
the  Lord's  body. 

Yours  sincerely, 

E.  R.  Hendrix. 


148  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Or  as  Bishop  J.  C.  Keener,  of  New  Orleans, 
writes  under  date  of  May  12th,  1892:  "No  change 
in  the  conditions  for  the  last  one  hundred  years." 

I  will  quote  two  recent  writers  of  the  Method- 
ist Church. 

Rev.  Miles  G.  Bullock,  a  prominent  Methodist 
writer  of  New  York,  says  on  this  subject  in  a 
book  with  the  title,  "What  Christians  Believe": 
'  'A  Baptist  maintains  that  only  believers  are  to 
be  baptized;  hence,  infant  baptism  is  nonsense; 
baptism  is  baptism  by  immersion;  baptized  be- 
lievers only  have  any  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
How  can  they,  therefore,  consistently  invite  or 
allow  me,  having  only  been  sprinkled,  and  that 
in  infancy,  to  commune  with  them?  Do  they 
keep  me  away  from  the  Lord's  Table,  or  is  it  I 
who  am  responsible  for  neglect  of  this  sacra- 
ment, having  refused  to  comply  with  the  essen- 
tial conditions  of  its  reception?  Close  commun- 
ion, as  it  is  generally  termed,  is  the  only  logical 
and  consistent  course  for  Baptist  churches  to 
pursue.  If  their  premises  are  right,  the  conclu- 
sion is  surely  just  as  it  should  be.  'But,'  says 
one,  whose  prejudices  are  all  awake,  '  why  will 
they  not  commune  with  those  believers  in  other 
churches  who  have  been  immersed? '  For  the 
consistent  reason  that  such  persons  have  violated 
the  New  Testament  order  in  communing  with 
unbaptized  believers,  and  are,  therefore,  not 
considered  in  good  standing.     They  do  not  feel 


THE  METHODISTS.  149 

willing  to  countenance  such  laxity  in  Christian 
discipline.  Let  us  honor  them  for  stern  stead- 
fastness in  maintaining  what  they  believe  to  be 
a  Bible  precept,  rather  than  criticise  and  cen- 
sure because  they  differ  with  us  concerning  the 
intent  and  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  and  believe 
it  to  be  an  irreparable  condition  of  coming  to  the 
Lord's  Supper." 

The  New  York  Gliristlan  Advocatt'  said  in  an 
editorial  in  1884:  "We  do  not  believe  in  adminis- 
tering the  sacrament  to  children,  nor  to  any  one 
that,  on  their  personal  character,  moral  or  men- 
tal, are  not,  in  the  opinion  of  the  church,  suitable 
to  be  received  intelligently  on  probation  in  the 
church,  with  reference  to  admission  into  full 
membership,  if  they  live  consistent  Christian 
lives  and  show  that  they  have  been  converted."' 

It  is  therefore  evident  not  only  that  the  Meth- 
odist Church  has  rules  governing  the  approach 
to  the  Lord's  table,  but  if  they  were  enforced, 
no  one  save  a  Methodist  could  commune  at  it. 

If  any  thing  is  proved  by  these  extracts  it  is 
that  every  church  has  the  right  to  judge  of  the 
qualifications  of  those  who  come  to  its  table.  I 
would  go  further  and  state  that  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  placed  within,  and  directly  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  church.  "The  eucharist,"  says  Dr. 
Hibbard,  '  'is  a  church  ordinance  and  as  such  can 
be  properly  participated  in  only  by  church  mem- 
bers.    As  a  church  ordinance,  it  never  can  be 


150  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

carried  out  of  the  church.  This  is  so  evident 
that  no  words  can  make  it  more  plain,  or  add  to 
its  force."     (Baptism,  p.  185). 

In  principle  are  the  Baptists  any  more  close 
than  are  the  Methodists?  I  shall  let  Dr.  Hib- 
bard  give  answer.  He  says:  "Before  enter- 
ing upon  the  argument  before  us,  it  is  just 
to  remark  that  in  one  principle  the  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists  churches  agree.  They  both  agree  in 
rejecting  from  communion  at  the  table  of  the  Lord 
and  in  denying  the  rights  of  church  fellowship  to 
all  who  have  not  been  baptized.  Valid  baptism 
they  consider  as  essential  to  constitute  visible 
church  membership.  This  also  we  hold.  The 
only  question,  then,  that  here  divides  us,  is, 
What  is  essential  to  valid  baptism  ?  The  Bap- 
tists, in  passing  the  sweeping  sentence  of  dis- 
franchisement upon  all  other  Christian  churches, 
have  acted  upon  a  principle  held  in  common  with 
all  other  Christian  churches;  viz.,  that  baptism 
is  essential  to  church  membership.  They  have 
denied  our  baptism,  and,  as  unbaptized  persons, 
we  have  been  excluded  from  their  table.  That 
they  err  greatly  in  their  views  of  baptism,  we, 
of  course  believe. 

^'But  according  to  their  vieius  of  baiitism,  they  cer- 
tainly are  consistent  in  restricting  thus  their  com- 
munion. We  would  not  be  understood  as  passing 
a  judgment  of  approval  upon  their  course;  but 
we  say,  their  views  of  baptism  force  them  upon 


THE  METHODISTS.  151 

the  ground  of  strict  communion,  and  herein  they 
act  upon  the  same  %)rinciple  as  other  churches,  i.e., 
they  admit  only  those  whom  they  deem  baptized 
persons  to  the  communion  table.  Of  course  they 
must  be  their  own  judges  as  to  what  baptism  is. 
It  is  evident  that,  according  to  our  views  of  bap- 
tism, it  is  equally  evident,  they  can  never  recip- 
rocate the  courtesy.  And  the  charge  of  close 

COMMUNION   is   NO   MORE   APPLICABLE  TO  THE 

Baptists  than  to  us  inasmuch  as  the  ques- 
tion OF  church  fellowship  with  them  is 
determined  by  as  liberal  principles  as  it 
is  with  any  other  Protestant  church,  so 
far,  I  mean,  as  the  present  subject  is  concerned; 
i.e.,  it  is  determined  by  valid  baptism."  (Hib- 
bard  on  Bapt.,  P.  2,  p.  174.) 

Richard  Watson,  and  Methodism  boasts  of  no 
greater,  lays  down  these  rules  to  govern  the 
Lord's  Supper: 

"1.  The  very  nature  of  the  ordinance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  excludes  from  participating  in  it 
not  only  open  unbelievers,  but  all  who  reject  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  made  by  the  vicarious 
death  of  Christ  for  'the  remission  of  sins. '  Such 
persons  have  indeed  tacitly  acknowledged  this, 
by  reducing  the  rite  to  a  mere  commemoration 
of  the  fact  of  Christ's  death,  and  of  those  virtues 
of  humility,  benevolence,  and  patience,  which 
his  sufferings  called  forth.  If,  therefore,  the 
Lord's  Supper  be  in  truth  much  more  than  this; 


152  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

if  it  recognize  the  sacrificial  character  of  Christ's 
death,  and  the  doctrine  of  faith  in  his  blood,  as 
necessary  to  our  salvation,  this  is  '  an  altar  of 
which  they  have  no  right  to  eat '  who  reject  these 
doctrines;  and  from  the  Lord's  table  all  such 
persons  ought  to  be  repelled  by  ministers,  when- 
ever, from  compliance  with  custom,  or  other 
motives,  they  would  approach  it. 

"2.  It  is  equally  evident  that  when  there  is  no 
evidence  in  jDersous  of  true  repentance  for  sin, 
and  of  desire  of  salvation,  according  to  the  terms 
of  the  Gospel,  they  are  disqualified  from  partak- 
ing at  'the  table  of  the  Lord.'  They  drink  and 
eat  unworthily,  and'  fall  therefore  into  '  condem- 
nation. '  The  whole  act  is  indeed  on  their  part  an 
act  of  bold  profanation  or  of  hypocrisy;  they 
profess  by  this  act  to  repent,  and  have  no  sorrow 
for  sin;  they  profess  to  seek  deliverance  from  its 
guilt  and  power,  and  yet  remain  willingly  under 
its  bondage;  they  jDrofess  to  trust  in  Christ's 
death  for  pardon,  and  are  utterly  unconcerned 
concerning  either;  they  profess  to  feed  uj)on 
Christ,  and  hunger  and  thirst  after  nothing  but 
the  world;  they  place  before  themselves  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ;  but  when  they  '  look  upon  him 
whom  they  have  pierced, '  they  do  not  '  mourn 
because  of  him,'  and  they  grossly  offend  the  all- 
present  majesty  of  heaven,  by  thus  making  light 
of  Christ,  and  grieving  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"3.  It  is  a  part  of  Christian  discipline  in  every 


THE  METHODISTS.  153 

religious  society  to  prevent  such  persons  from 
communicating  with  the  Church.  They  are  ex- 
pressly excluded  by  apostolic  authority,  as  well 
as  by  the  original  institution  of  this  sacrament, 
which  was  confined  to  Christ's  disciples;  and 
ministers  would  i3artake  of  other  men's  sins,  if 
knowingly  they  were  to  admit  to  the  Supper  of 
the  Lord  those  who  in  their  spirit  and  lives  deny 
him."     (Inst.  Theol.,  vol.  2,  pp.  669,  670.) 

The  New  York  CJmstian  Advocate,  the  ablest 
Methodist  paper  on  this  continent,  says:  "There 
is  no  authority,  Scriptural  or  Methodistic,  for 
making  the  invitation  general.  The  man  who 
will  not  subject  himself  to  the  discipline  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  ally  himself  with  its  mem- 
bers, has  no  right  to  ask  or  receive  communion 
at  its  hands.  The  course  pursued  by  some  min- 
isters degrades  the  church  and  sacraments. 
Every  person  should  be  formally  recognized  as  a 
disciple  of  Christ;  it  should  not  be  left  to  his 
own  judgment.  Years  ago  a  minister  said:  'We 
sit  in  judgment  upon  no  one.  If  in  his  heart  he 
feels  that  he  loves  the  Lord,  he  can  come  and 
commune  with  us. '  And  the  meanest  loafer  in 
town,  in  debt  to  half  of  the  church  for  money 
spent  upon  his  vices,  unkind  to  his  heart-broken 
wife,  and  exi3elled  from  another  church,  marched 
forward  with  a  smirk  upon  his  face  to  take  com- 
munion. After  what  the  minister  had  said,  he 
could  not   consistently  refuse  him,   but  nearly 


154  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

every  important  member  of  the  church  expressed 
his  disapproval  in  such  terms  that  the  experi- 
ment was  not  tried  there  again." 

It  would,  therefore,  be  wise  for  some  persons  to 
learn  this  further  lesson  given  by  the  New  York 
Christian  Advocate: '  'The  regularBaptist  churches 
in  the  United  States  may  be  considered  to-day  as 
practically  a  unit  on  three  points — the  non-use 
of  infant  baptism,  the  immersion  of  believers 
only  upon  a  profession  of  faith,  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  holy  communion  to  such  only  as 
have  been  immersed  by  ministers  holding  these 
views.  In  our  opinion  the  Baptist  Church  owes 
its  amazing  prosperity  largely  to  its  adherence 
to  these  views.  In  doctrine  and  government, 
and  in  other  respects,  it  is  the  same  as  the  Con- 
gregationalists.  In  numbers,  the  regular  Bap- 
tists are  more  than  six  times  as  great  as  the 
Congregationalists.  It  is  not  bigotry  to  adhere 
to  one's  convictions,  provided  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tian love  prevails." 

With  the  above  facts  before  me,  taken  as  they 
are  from  the  Discipline  and  the  ablest  writers  of 
that  denomination,  I  am  led  to  believe,  that  in 
principle  and  often  times  in  practice,  the  Meth- 
odist Church  is  very  stringent  in  its  terms  of 
communion.  I  am  equally  sure  that  the  Meth- 
odists, if  they  should  carry  out  their  own  prin- 
ciples, would  be  far  more  stringent  than  the 
Baptists.     It  is  also  quite  certain  that  the  Meth- 


THE  METHODISTS.  155 

odist  circuit  riders,  and  some  others,  who  throw 
down  all  barriers,  and  give  an  indiscriminate  in- 
vitation for  all  persons,  good  and  bad,  to  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  act  contrary  to  the  Disci- 
jDline  and  teachings  of  their  church.  It  is  then 
a  point  made  out  that  the  requirements  of  the 
Baptists  in  their  terms  of  communion,  are  nc 
more  rigid  than  are  the  Methodists. 


156  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  TERMS  OF  COMMUNION  AMONG  THE  DISCI- 
PLES OR  OF  THE   CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.      ARE 
THE  DISCIPLES  CLOSE  COMMUNIONISTS? 

THIS  denomination  believes  with  all  others 
that  faith,  baptism,  and  church  member- 
ship are  prerequisites  to  the  communion.  They 
go  further  than  some  and  state  that  baptism 
is  immersion  and  deny  infant  baptism.  Hold- 
ing such  views,  how  they  can  be  other  than 
"close  communionists,"  and  be  at  all  consistent, 
I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  wish  to  speculate  so  I 
shall  let  their  foremost  men  answer. 

I  begin  with  Alexander  Campbell.  He  says : 
' '  We  do  not  recollect  that  we  have  ever  argued 
out  the  merits  of  this  free  and  open  communion 
system.  But  one  remark  we  must  offer  in  pass- 
ing, that  we  must  regard  it  as  one  of  the  weakest 
and  most  vulnerable  causes  ever  plead;  and  that 
the  '  great '  Mr.  Hall,  as  he  is  called,  has  in  his 
defence  of  the  practice,  made  it  appear  worse 
than  before.  In  attempting  to  make  it  reason- 
able, he  has  only  proved  how  unreasonable  and 
unscriptural  it  is."    (Mil.  Har.,  vol.  2,  p.  393.) 

In  reply  to  a  question  from  Mr.  Jones  of  Eng- 
land, Mr.  Campbell  says:  "Your  third  question 


THE  DISCIPLES  OR  CHRISTIANS.  157 

is,  Do  auy  of  your  churches  admit  unbaptized 
persons  to  communion,  a  practice  that  is  becom- 
ing very  prevalent  in  this  country?  Not  one  SO 
FAR  AS  IS  KNOWN  TO  ME.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  un- 
derstand on  what  principle — by  what  law,  prece- 
dent or  license,  any  congregation  founded  upon 
the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  being 
the  chief  corner  stone,  could  dispense  with  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church — with  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord  and  the  authority  of  his 
apostles."     (Mil.  Har.,  vol.  6,  p.  18.) 

In  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  Mr.  Campbell 
says:  "We  have  no  open  communion  with  us, 
as  they  in  England  have.  The  principle  is  not 
at  all  recognized  among  us.  In  England  there 
are  large  communities  of  free  communion  Bap- 
tists, who  admit  Pedobaptists  as  freely  as  they 
do  the  baptized.  We  have  no  such  a  custom 
among  us."     (Debate  with  Rice,  p.  810.) 

In  the  Christian  Baptist,  Mr.  Campbell  says: 
"But  I  object  to  making  it  a  rule,  in  any  case, 
to  receive  unimmersed  persons  to  church  ordi- 
nances: 1st.  Because  it  is  nowhere  commanded. 
2nd.  Because  it  is  nowhere  precedented  in  the 
New  Testament.  3rd.  Because  it  necessarily 
corrupts  the  simplicity  and  uniformity  of  the 
whole  genius  of  the  New  Testament.  4th.  Be- 
cause it  not  only  deranges  the  order  of  the  king- 
dom, but  makes  void  one  of  the  most  important 
institutions  ever  given  to  man.     It  necessarily 


158  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

makes  immersion  of  non-effect.  5th.  Because 
in  making  a  canon  to  dispense  with  a  divine  in- 
stitution of  momentous  import,  they  who  do  so 
assume  the  very  same  dispensing  power  which 
issued  in  that  tremendous  apostasy  which  we 
and  all  Christians  are  laboring  to  destroy.  If  a 
Christian  community  puts  into  its  magna  charta, 
covenant  or  constitution,  an  assumption  to  dis- 
pense with  an  institution  of  the  Great  King,  who 
can  tell  where  this  power  of  granting  license  to 
itself  may  terminate."  (Christ.  Bapt.,  vol.  6, 
Ans.  to  Query  9,  p.  528.) 

Mr.  Campbell  was  certainly  no  open  commun- 
ionist. 

The  Apostolic  Times,  a  very  widely  circulated 
paper,  says:  "I  do  not  believe  that  the  unim- 
mersed  can  sit  at  the  Lord's  table;  at  least  I  do 
not  believe  that  they  do  it.  Hence,  with  me,  a 
table  set  by  them  is  not  the  Lord's  table;  and  I 
would  not  eat  at  it.  *  *  *  Prom  the  preceding 
it  would  appear  that  I  am  a  close  communionist. 
This  I  certainly  am,  in  the  severest,  true  sense 
of  the  term."     (Editorial,  February  29th,  1872.) 

Another  number  of  the  Apostolic  Times  says: 
"Open  communion  will  not  only  kill  Baptist 
churches;  but  any  other  churches  holding  im- 
mersion as  the  one  baptism,  in  which  it  is 
adopted. " 

In  the  CJn'istian  Quarterly,  for  January,  1875, 
Robert  Graham,   President  of  Hocker  Female 


THE  DISCIPLES  OK  CHRISTIANS.  159 

College  says:  '"In  regard  to  what  is  called  open 
or  close  communion  the  position  of  the  Disciples 
is  peculiar.  Pedobaptist  churches  are  usually 
open  or  free  communionists.  This  they  can  be 
in  harmony  with  their  principles.  All  churches 
agree  that  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  commun- 
ion at  the  table  of  the  Lord;  and  as  Pedobaptists 
accept  sprinklmg,  and  pouring  and  immersion  as 
valid  forms  of  baptism,  they  can  receive  at  the 
table  of  the  Lord  any  one  who  has  been  baptized, 
and  is  living  a  godly  life.  Baptists,  however, 
do  not  allow  anything  to  be  baptism  but  the  im- 
mersion of  a  believer;  and  in  this  the  Disciples 
are  in  perfect  agreement  with  them;  hence  nei- 
ther of  the  churches  can  consistently  advocate 
open  communion." 

The  late  Isaac  Errett,  for  many  years  editor 
of  the  Standard,  says:  ''Restore  baptism  to  its 
place  as  the  ordinance  in  which  the  believing 
penitent  puts  on  Christ,  and  receives  the  assur- 
ance of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Restore  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  its  place  as  the  weekly  feast  of 
CJn'istiajis/''  By  Christians  he  means  only  the 
baptized.     (Walks  About  Jerusalem,  p.  147.) 

Moses  E.  Lard  says:  "In  the  outset  of  the 
reformation,  our  motto  was:  And  thus  saith  the 
Lord  for  every  article  of  our  faith,  a  precept,  or 
precedent  for  all  w^e  do.  In  the  light  of  this 
cherished  postulate,  what  defence  can  we  plead 
for  our  act,  when  we  sit  down  to  commune  with 


160  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

the  unimmersed.  *  *  *  But  suppose  a  man  to 
be  a  true  believer  in  Christ,  to  be  truly  penitent, 
to  be  sprinkled  and  not  immersed,  and  sincerely 
to  think  this  baptism,  to  be  strictly  a  moral  man, 
and  to  feel  in  his  heart  that  he  is  a  Christian — 
what  then?  May  he  not  commune?  I  answer,  yes: 
provided  it  can  be  shown  that  sincerely  thinking 
so  transmutes  an  act  of  sprinkling  into  an  act  of 
immersion  or  causes  God  to  accept  the  thing  He 
has  not  appointed  for  the  thing  he  has."  (In 
Quarterly,  1863,  pp.  41,  52.) 

It  seems  that  some  Baptist  minister  in  the  East 
had  presided  at  the  communion  table  in  a  "Chris- 
tian Church,"  and  some  of  the  "Disciples"  were 
loudly  praising  him  for  liberality.  Rev.  E.  W. 
Herndon,  Editor  of  the  Quarterly  Revieiv,  replies: 
'  'A  Baptist  is  a  '  brother  among  brethren'  when 
he  will  violate  his  jjarty  obligations  and  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  the  disciples  of  Jesus. 
This  man  knows  that  his  religious  organization 
holds  that  it  is  wrong  for  him  to  do  this  thing, 
yet  he  does  it,  and  continues  to  hold  his  fellow- 
ship with  it,  and  receives  pay  from  its  members 
for  preaching  its  doctrines.  Is  he  honest?  We 
have  heard  that  Spurgeon  permits  members  of 
other  religious  organizations  to  commune  with 
him,  but  not  long  since  he  denounced  those  he 
called  Campbellites  as  heretics.  *  *  *  Our  duty 
is  to  proclaim  the  terms  of  naturalization,  and  it 
is  God's  prerogative  to  decide  who  have  complied 


THE  DISCIPLES  OR  CHRISTIANS.  161 

with  the  terms.  We  have  no  right  to  proclaim 
the  terms,  and  then  say  that  citizenship  may  be 
acquired  by  other  means.  According  to  the 
above,  a  Baptist  is  a  'brother  among  brethren,' 
and  just  as  much  a  citizen  of  the  Kingdom  of 
God  as  those  for  whom  he  was  presiding.  If  he 
is  a  'brother  among  brethren,'  then  he  is  one  of 
the  family  and  our  debates  with  Baptists  must 
cease.  If  the  Baptists  will  permit  it,  disciples 
of  Jesus,  when  living  in  a  locality  where  there  is 
no  congregaAion  of  disciples,  may  and  should 
take  membership  in  a  Baptist  organization,  assist 
in  supporting  the  pastor  and  their  missionary 
enterprises,  if  this  position  is  correct.  We  do 
not  so  read  the  Bible.  It  may  be  possible  that 
these  editors  are  more  liberal  in  their  fellowship 
and  fraternity  than  God.  We  may  be  narrow, 
but  we  endeavor  to  be  consistent,  and  we  think 
that  we  are  not  narrower  than  the  Word  of  God." 
(Christian  Review,  1887,  j).  637.) 

Prof.  J.  W.  McGarvey,  of  the  Bible  College, 
Lexington,  Ky.,  says;  "We  believe  that  faith, 
repentance  and  baptism  are  the  Scriptural  pre- 
requisites to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  no  be- 
liever is  entitled  to  the  ordinance  until  he  has 
been  baptized.  We  believe  the  privilege  belongs 
to  all  baptized  believers,  and  to  those  Avho  are 
leading  an  orderly  life,  and  to  none  others." 
(Apostolic  Times,  November  17th,  1874.) 
11 


162  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

The  American  Christian  Review,  Cincinnati, 
Ohio,  says:  "  It  is  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God 
to  break  bread  and  to  partake  of  the  cup  with 
persons  who  have  never  been  immersed  into  the 
death  of  Christ.     See  Rom.  6." 

These  writers  undoubtedly  teach  close  com- 
munion. 


what' IS  BAPTISM?  163 

CHAPTER  XII. 

WHAT  IS  BAPTISM? 

FROM  the  standard  authorities  of  all  of  these 
denominations,  as  well  as  from  the  Scrip- 
tures, I  have  demonstrated  that  conversion,  bap- 
tism and  church  membership  precede  commun- 
ion. Dr.  Knapp  sums  up  the  matter  when  he 
says:  "None  but  actual  members  of  the  Christian 
church  can  take  part  in  the  Lord's  Supper;  those 
who  are  not  Cliristians  are  excluded  from  it.  On 
this  point  there  has  been  a  universal  agreement. 
For  by  this  rite  we  profess  our  interest  in  the 
Christian  church,  and  our  belief  in  Christ." 
(Theology,  p.  502.) 

From  this  argument  there  is  but  one  point  of 
divergence,  What  is  church  order?  If  that  point 
were  settled,  there  would  be  no  further  contro- 
versy. The  point  of  difference  is  baptism  in  its 
act,  subjects  and  design.  We  regard  sprinkling 
and  pouring,  infant  baptism,  and  when  the  rite 
is  administered  with  the  wrong  design,  as  no 
baptism.  Hence  we  accept  the  principle  of  Ter- 
tullian:  "They  who  are  not  rightly  baptized,  are 
doubtless  not  baptized  at  all."  (De  Baptismo, 
cap.  XV,  p.  230.)  So  certain  are  we  that  those 
who  practice  such  things  have  departed  from 


164  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

church  order  that  we  believe  that  they  have  de- 
barred themselves  from  the  table  of  the  Lord. 
I  shall  go  into  no  extended  arguments,  on  these 
subjects,  but  shall  content  myself  with  some 
passing  reflections. 

The  argument  for  immersion  as  the  act  of 
Christian  baptism  is  overwhelming.  Even  our 
English  Bible  teaches  immersion;  although  it  is 
an  Episcopal  translation  rendered  under  rules, 
that  forbade  the  translation  of  baptize,  and  com- 
manded that  the  word  should  be  merely  trans- 
ferred. I  have  those  rules  before  me.  Rules 
three  and  four  are  the  ones  in  point,  so  I  simply 
quote  them:  "(3.)  The  old  ecclesiastical  words 
to  be  kept,  namely,  as  the  word  '  church '  not  to 
be  translated  congregation,  etc.  (4.)  When  any 
word  hath  divers  significations,  that  to  be  kept 
that  has  been  most  commonly  used  by  the  most 
eminent  Fathers,  being  agreeable  to  the  pro- 
priety of  the  place,  and  the  analogy  of  faith." 
(See  Puller's  Church  History  of  Britain,  vol.  3, 
p.  229.) 

That  "baptize"  was  included  among  these 
ecclesiastical  words  is  evident  from  the  preface 
that  King  James'  translators  put  to  their  Bible. 
I  find  the  following:  "Avoided  the  scrupulosity 
of  the  Puritans,  who  leave  the  old  Ecclesiastical 
words  and  betake  them  to  others;  as  when  they 
put  washing  for  baptism,  and  congregation  for 
church;  as  on  the  other  side  they  had  shunned 


WHAT  IS  BAPTISM?  165 

the  obscurity  of  the  Papists  in  their  azymes. 
tunike,  rational,  holocaust,  and  a  number  of  such 
like,  whereof  their  late  translation  is  full." 

Yet  taking  King  James'  translation  immersion 
is  the  evident  meaning  of  baptism.  Read  such 
passages  as  these:  "And  there  went  out  unto 
John  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of 
Jordan,  confessing  their  sins,"  Mark  1:5;  "And 
it  came  to  pass  in  those  days,  that  Jesus  came 
from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of 
John  in  Jordan.  And  straightway  coming  up 
out  of  the  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened, 
and  the  Spirit  like  a  dove  descending  upon  him, " 
Mark  1:9,10;  "And  John  was  also  baptizing  in 
Enon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much  water 
there:  and  they  came,  and  were  baptized,"  John 
3:23;  "And  they  went  down  both  into  the  water, 
both  Philip  and  the  eunuch;  and  he  baptized  him. 
And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  Avater. 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,"  Acts 
8:38,39;  "Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death:  that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  we  also  should  walk  in  the  newness 
of  life,"  Rom.  6:4;  "One  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism,"  Eph.  4:5. 

I  have  already  showed  that  baptize  was  trans- 
ferred and  not  translated.  It  is  a  Greek  word  in 
English  dress.     Dr.  Edward  Beecher  says  of  it: 


166  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

"I  remark,  then,  that  to  transfer  words  from 
one  language  to  another,  is  not  to  mistranslate, 
but  simply  to  take  a  word  from  the  stores  of  one 
language,  and  by  it  to  enrich  those  of  another. 
The  sense  of  such  a  word  is  to  be  fixed,  as  in  the 
sense  of  all  other  words,  by  the  association  of 
ideas.  For  example,  to  dip,  is  of  Saxon  origin, 
and  belongs  to  the  native  stores  of  our  language. 
On  the  other  hand  the  word  immergo  did  not  be- 
long to  our  language,  but  to  the  Latin.  At 
length,  from  a  form  of  this  verb,  the  word  im- 
merse was  transferred  to  our  language,  and 
immersio  was  transferred  to  immersion.  In  like 
manner  baptize  and  baptism  have  been  trans- 
ferred from  the  Greek."  (Baptism  with  Refer- 
ence to  its  Modes  and  Subjects,  p.  122.) 

We  are  therefore  justified  in  appealing  to  the 
Greek  for  the  original  meaning  of  the  word  bap- 
tize. It  will  there  be  found  to  have  a  special  and 
not  a  general  meaning.  As  J  olm  Pye  Smith  says : 
' '  The  New  Testament  has  no  generic  term  to  des- 
ignate Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper."  (First 
Lines  of  Christian  Theology,  Art.  Bapt. )  In  the 
original  Greek,  beyond  question,  baptize  means 
to  dip.  I  shall  quote  the  two  most  learned  Greek 
Lexicons  published,  Liddell  and  Scott,  and 
Thayer.  Liddell  and  Scott  define  the  word :  "  To 
dip  in,  or  under  water."  Thayer  says:  "To  dip 
repeatedly,  to  immerse,  to  submerge.  In  the 
New  Testament  it  is  used  particularly  of  the  rite 


WHAT  IS  BAPTISM?  167 

of  sacred  ablution,  first  instituted  by  John  the 
Baptist,  afterward  by  Christ's  command  received 
by  Christians  and  adjusted  to  the  nature  and 
contents  of  their  religion,  viz:  an  immersion  in 
water. " 

How  immersion  was  changed  into  sprinkling  is 
equally  evident.  The  brilliant  Pressense  says: 
' '  To  comprehend  the  value  of  this  august  symbol 
(baptism),  we  must  consider  it  under  its  primi- 
tive form.  I  declare  at  the  outset,  that  I  admit 
the  right  of  the  church  to  modify  the  form  and 
rite  according  to  times  and  places.  The  new 
covenant  is  not  bound,  as  was  the  old,  to  a  Le- 
vitical  code  which  rules  absolutely  all  the  details 
of  worship,  all  religious  usages.  The  details  are 
left  to  Christian  liberty;  and  forms  may  be 
varied,  provided  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  is  not 
changed.  Let  it,  then,  be  well  understood  that 
we  raise  no  objection  to  the  actual  form  of  bap- 
tism in  our  churches.  We  believe  that  it  would 
be  an  act  of  Judaism  to  protest  against  it,  giving 
thereby  an  exaggerated  importance  to  a  question 
of  this  nature.  The  West  can  reproduce  with 
difficulty  the  ceremonies  of  the  East,  and  we 
understand  very  well  that  sprinkling  has  been 
substituted  for  immersion.  Nevertheless,  to  seize 
with  entire  clearness  the  primary  idea  of  the 
sacrament  of  regeneration,  we  must  in  some  way 
make  a  primitive  baptism  assist  us.  The  neo- 
phyte  was   first  plunged   into  the  water;   and 


168  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

then,  when  he  had  emerged,  he  received  the  im- 
position of  hands.  These  two  acts  of  baptism 
represented  the  two  grand  sides  of  the  Christian 
life — repentance  and  faith,  death  and  the  new 
life.  The  neophyte  is  buried  under  the  waters 
in  sign  of  his  voluntary  death  to  self,  in  which 
every  serious  conversion  begins:  he  becomes  one 
who  is  planted  in  the  crucifixion  of  his  Saviour. 
Then  he  emerges  to  light  in  sign  of  his  inward 
renewal:  he  becomes  one  who  is  planted  in  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  Thus  is  figured  in 
a  manner  the  most  expressive  and  solemn  all 
this  grand  drama  of  regeneration. "  (For  further 
information  on  this  subject  consult  the  author's 
work:  Immersion,  the  Act  of  Christian  Baptism, 
Baptist  Book  Concern,  Louisville,  Ky. ) 

The  Scriptures  are  equally  opposed  to  infant 
baptism.  The  commission  under  which  we  bap- 
tize reads:  "Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  Avhatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you:  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen. "  (Matt. 
28:19,20.)  Mark's  words  are:  "Go  ye  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  unto  every 
creature.  He  that  believelh  and  is  baptized  shall 
be  saved;  but  he  that  bolieveth  not  shall  be 
damned."  (Mark  16:15,10.)  Without  doubt,  in 
these  passages,  discipleship  and  faith  precedes 


WHAT  IS  BAPTISM?  169 

baptism.     Infant  baptism    must,    therefore,   di- 
rectly nullify  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

John  the  Baptist  declared  his  baptism  was 
"unto  repentance,"' Matt.  3:11;  Jesus  "made" 
disciples  before  he  baptized  them,  John  4:1;  and 
in  the  apostolic  times  ' '  they  that  gladly  received 
the  word  were  baptized,"  Acts  2:41.  From  these, 
and  other  passages  too  numerous  to  quote,  it  is 
evident  that  infant  baptism  has  no  place  in  the 
Scriptures. 

Infant  baptism  originated  not  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  in  the  unholy  doctrine  of  baptismal 
salvation.  In Lecky's  "History of  Rationalism"' 
occur  the  following  burning  lines:  "According 
to  the  unanimous  belief  of  the  early  church  all 
who  were  external  to  Christianity  were  doomed 
to  eternal  damnation,  and  therefore  the  new- 
born infant  was  subject  to  the  condemnation  un- 
less baptism  had  united  it  to  the  church.  At  a 
period  which  is  so  early  that  it  is  impossible  to 
define  it  (we  are  able  now  to  define  it)  infant 
baptism  was  introduced  into  the  church;  it  was 
universally  said  to  be  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  the  w^hole  body  of  the  fathers  without  excep- 
tion or  hesitation  pronounced  that  all  infants 
who  died  unbaptized  were  excluded  from  heaven. 
All  through  the  Middle  Ages  we  trace  the  influ- 
ence of  this  doctrine  in  the  innumerable  super- 
stitious rites  which  were  devised  as  substitutes 
for  regular  baptism.     Nothing,  indeed,  can  be 


170  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

more  curious,  nothing  can  be  more  deeply  pa- 
thetic than  the  record  of  the  many  ways  by 
which  the  terror-stricken  mothers  attempted  to 
evade  the  awful  sentence  of  the  church.  Some- 
times the  baptismal  water  was  sprinkled  upon 
the  womb;  sometimes  the  still-born  child  was 
baptized  in  hopes  that  the  Almighty  would  ante- 
date the  ceremony.  These  and  many  similar 
practices  continued  all  through  the  Middle  Ages 
in  spite  of  every  effort  to  extirpate  them,  and 
severest  censures  were  unable  to  persuade  the 
people  that  they  were  entirely  ineffectual,  for  the 
doctrine  of  the  church  had  wrung  the  mother's 
heart  with  an  agony  that  Avas  too  poignant  even 
for  that  submissive  age  to  bear.  Weak  and  su- 
perstitious women,  who  never  dreamed  of  rebel- 
ling against  the  teaching  of  their  clergy,  could 
not  acquiesce  in  the  perdition  of  their  offspring, 
and  they  vainly  attempted  to  escape  from  the 
dilemma  by  multiplying  superstitious  practices 
or  by  attributing  to  them  a  more  than  orthodox 
efficacy. " 

It  is  said  that  this  is  not  believed  among  Meth- 
odists, Presbyterians  and  others,  "at  the  pres- 
ent day.  I  answer  that  infant  baptism  is  not 
practiced  among  Presbyterians,  Congregational- 
ists  and  Methodists  to-day  as  at  an  earlier  time. 
But  much  of  this  superstition  still  exists;  else 
why  are  ministers  hastily  sent  for  to  baptize 
children  supposed  to  be  dying?  As  churches  be- 


WHAT  IS  BAI'TISM?  171 

gin  to  abandon  the  doctrine  that  baptism  is 
necessary  to  the  infant's  salvation  they  begin 
also  to  abandon  infant  baptism.  Just  in  propor- 
tion as  the  New  Testament  ideas  prevail,  this 
rite,  which  is  a  survival  of  heathen  superstition 
and  Roman  tradition,  and  is  utterly  without  the 
warrant  either  of  Scripture  or  reason,  falls  into 
disuse.  The  recent  debates  over  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  have  brought  before  the  minds 
of  all  the  fact  that  early  Calvinistic  theologians 
taught  that  dying  infants  might  be  sent  to  perdi- 
tion, though  as  non-elect  rather  than  as  unbap- 
tized. " 

Pedobaptists  fully  acknowledge  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  as  silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject  of 
infant  baptism.     Hear  only  a  few  scholars. 

Dr.  A.  T.  Bledsoe,  and  among  Southern  Meth- 
odists there  has  not  arisen  a  greater,  says:  "But 
what  we  wish,  in  this  connection,  to  emphasize 
most  particularly,  is  the  wonderful  contrast  be- 
tween the  silence  of  Christ  and  the  everlasting 
clamors  of  his  Church.  Though  he  uttered  not 
one  express  word  on  the  subject  of  infant  bap- 
tism, yet,  on  this  very  subject,  have  his  pro- 
fessed followers  filled  the  world  with  sound  and 
fury.  The  Apostles  imitated  his  silence.  But 
yet,  in  spite  of  all  of  this,  have  the  self-styled 
'  successors  of  the  Apostles, '  and  the  advocates 
of  their  claims,  made  the  universal  Church,  and 
all  the  ages,  ring  with  controversies,  loud  and 


172  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

long  and  deep,  respecting  the  rite  of  infant  bap- 
tism. Let  us  follow,  then,  step  by  step,  the  rise 
of  the  traditions  of  the  Church,  and  the  inven- 
tions of  men,  by  which  the  beautifully  simple 
ordinance  of  Christian  baptism  has  been  so 
frightfully  disfigured,  and  made  to  obscure  the 
freeness,  the  fulness,  and  the  glory  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Christ,  as  well  as  to  outrage  the  reason 
and  moral  sentiments  of  mankind.  It  will  be 
found,  unless  we  are  very  greatly  mistaken,  that 
the  authors  of  these  traditions  and  inventions, 
have  been  wise  above  what  is  written,  and  foolish 
above  w^hat  could  be  conceived."  (Southern  Re- 
view, April,  1874,  p.  336.) 

Dr.  Bennett,  a  more  recent  Methodist  writer, 
says:  "With  the  most  of  theologians  the  exercise 
of  faith  is  regarded  as  the  necessary  condition 
of  the  efficient  operation  of  the  sacrament.  *  *  * 
Thus  the  first  converts,  whose  names  and  the 
circumstances  of  whose  baptism  are  recorded  in 
the  Scriptures,  were  of  adult  ago.  That  infants 
and  young  children  were  baptized  during  the 
apostolic  age  is  nowhere  positively  affirmed  in 
the  New  Testament. "  (Archeology,  pp.  390,  391.) 

Dr.  Meyer,  the  most  learned  of  modern  com- 
mentators, says:  "Therefore  the  baptism  of  even 
the  children  of  Christian  parents,  of  which  there 
is  not  a  trace  in  the  New  Testament,  was  not,  as 
Origen  supposed,  an  apostolic  custom,  inasmuch 
as  it  met  with  early  and  prolonged  resistance; 


WHAT  IS  BAPTISM?  173 

but  it  is  a  practice  that  arose  after  the  age  of  the 
apostles,  by  a  gradual  process  in  connection  with 
the  development  of  church  life  and  of  church  doc- 
trine. There  is  no  reliable  testimony  concerning 
it  until  the  age  of  Tertullian,  who  opposed  it 
with  earnestness.  It  was  defended,  however,  by 
Cyprian;  but  it  was  only  in  the  time  of  Augus- 
tine that  it  became  general."    (Com.  Acts  16:15.) 

Dr.  Hamack,  the  foremost  living  Church  His- 
torian, says:  "The  introduction  of  the  practice 
of  pedobaptism  into  the  church  is  hidden  in  ob- 
scurity. If  it  owes  its  origin  to  the  indispensa- 
bleness  of  the  same  to  salvation,  this  is  an 
argument  that  the  superstitious  view  of  baptism 
had  become  greatly  strengthened. "  (Harnack: 
Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte,  Bk.  1,  ss. 
358,  359.) 

We  think  our  friends  of  other  denominations 
are  radically  wrong  on  the  design  of  baptism. 
In  some  way  or  another  they  make  baptism 
essential  to  salvation.  "VVe  believe  that  a  man  is 
saved  through  faith,  without  works,  by  the  aton- 
ing mercy  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  We  do  not  believe 
that  a  man  is  saved  by  priestly  manipulations, 
by  ordinances,  nor  by  churchly  functions.  So 
we  stand  against  baptismal  salvation  in  all  of  its 
forms. 

That  others  hold  baptismal  salvation  is  be- 
yond doubt. 

Episcopalians  believe  in  baptismal  salvation. 


174  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Nothing  is  more  manifest  than  that  baptismal 
salvation  is  taught  in  the  Prayer  Book.  In  the 
Public  Baptism  of  Infants  the  minister  prays: 
'  'Almighty  and  immortal  God,  the  aid  of  all  who 
need,  the  helper  of  all  who  flee  to  thee  for  suc- 
cour, the  life  of  those  who  believe,  and  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead;  we  call  upon  thee  for  this 
infant,  that  he,  coming  to  the  holy  baptism,  may 
receive  the  remission  of  sin,  by  spiritual  regen- 
eration. " 

In  the  Catechism  which  every  one  must  learn 
before  he  is  confirmed  I  find: 

"What  is  your  name? 

"Answer:  N.  or  M. 

"Who  gave  you  this  name? 

"Answer:  My  sponsors  in  baptism;  wherein  I 
was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God, 
and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

"How  many  sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained 
in  his  church? 

"Answer:  Two  only,  as  generally  necessary 
to  salvation;  that  is  to  say,  Baptism,  and  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord. " 

And  in  the  Order  of  Confirmation  the  Bishop 
prays:  "Almighty  and  everlasting  God,  who  hast 
vouchsafed  to  regenerate  these  thy  servants  by 
water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  hast  given  unto 
them  the  forgiveness  of  all  their  sins;  Strengthen 
them,  we  beseech  thee,  O  Lord,  with  the  Holy 
Ghost." 


WHAT  IS  BAPTISM?  175 

There  is  no  kind  of  doubt  that  this  is  baptismal 
salvation.  And  this  is  so  understood  by  Episco- 
pal writers. 

Dr.  Wall  says:  "Most  of  the  Pedobaptists  go 
no  further  than  St.  Austin  does;  they  hold  that 
God,  by  his  Spirit,  does  at  the  time  of  baptism 
seal  and  apply  to  the  infant  that  i.j  there  dedi- 
cated to  him  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of 
which  he  is  capable,  viz:  adoption,  j)ardon  of  sin, 
translation  from  the  state  of  nature  to  that  of 
grace,  etc.  On  which  account  the  infant  is  said 
to  be  regenerated  of  (or  by)  the  Spirit."  (Hist. 
Infant  Baptism,  vol  1,  p.  175.) 

Lord  Macaulay  says  of  the  Episcopalian 
Church:  "A  controversialist  who  puts  an  Ar- 
minian  sense  on  her  articles  and  homilies  will  be 
pronounced  by  candid  men  to  be  as  unreasonable 
as  a  controversialist  who  denies  that  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  regeneration  can  be  discovered 
in  her  liturgy. "'  (Hist.  Eng.,  vol.  1,  p.  41.) 

Presbyterians  make  baptism  a  means  of  grace. 
They  still  call  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  by 
the  popish  name  of  '  *  sacraments. "  The  doctrine 
is  thus  expressed  in  the  Confession  of  Faith: 
"Sacraments  are  holy  signs  and  seals  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  immediately  instituted  by 
God,  to  represent  Christ  and  his  benefits ;  and  to 
confirm  our  interests  in  him,  as  also  to  i3ut  a  visi- 
ble difference  between  those  that  belong  unto  the 
church,  and  the  rest  of  the  world;  and  solemnly 


176  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

to  engage  them  to  the  service  of  God  in  Christ, 
according  to  his  word."    (Article  XXVII.) 

The  view  of  Calvin  is  thus  stated  by  Dr.  Schaff : 
"He  taught  that  believers,  while  they  receive 
with  their  mouths  the  visible  elements,  receive 
also  by  faith  the  spiritual  realities  signified  and 
sealed  thereby — namely,  the  benefit  of  the  aton- 
ing sacrifice  on  the  cross  and  the  life-giving 
virtue  of  Christ's  glorified  humanity  in  heaven, 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  conveys  to  the  soul  in  a 
supernatural  manner. "  Or  in  the  words  of  Dr. 
Nevin:  "The  living  energy,  the  vivific  virtue,  as 
Calvin  styles  it,  of  Christ's  flesh,  is  made  to  flow 
over  into  the  commiuiicant,  making  him  more 
and  more  one  with  Christ  himself,  and  thus  more 
and  more  an  heir  of  the  same  immortality  that  is 
brought  to  light  in  his  person. " 

Or  as  Dr.  Nevin  puts  it  in  another  place:  The 
Church  ' '  makes  us  Christians  by  the  sacrament 
of  holy  baptism,  which  she  always  held  to  be  of 
supernatural  force  for  this  very  purpose." 
(Christ.  Nurture,  p.  97.)  If  this  is  not  sacramen- 
tal salvation,  I  do  not  know  how  to  name  it. 

Dr.  Guthrie  says:  "And  prone,  as  we  of  Scot- 
land are,  to  boast  that  our  fathers,  with  Knox  at 
their  head,  came  forth  from  Rome  with  less  of 
her  old  superstitions  about  them  than  the  most 
of  other  churches,  to  what  else  than  some  linger- 
ing remains  of  popery  can  we  ascribe  the  ex- 
treme anxiety  which  some  parents  show  to  have 


WHAT  IS  BAPTISM?  177 

baptism  administered  to  a  dying  child?  Does  not 
this  look  very  like  a  rag  of  the  old  faith?  It 
smells  of  the  sepulcher."  (Gos.  in  Ezek.,  p.  213.) 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  is  good  authority.  He  says: 
"Baptism,  however,  is  not  only  a  sign  and  a 
seal;  it  is  also  a  means  of  grace,  because  in  it 
the  blessings  which  it  signifies  are  conveyed, 
and  the  promises  of  which  it  is  the  seal,  are  as- 
sured or  fulfilled  to  those  who  are  baptized,  pro- 
vided they  believe."  "It  does  not  follow  from 
this  that  the  benefits  of  redemption  may  not  be 
conferred  on  mfants  at  the  time  of  baptism. 
That  is  in  the  hands  of  God.  What  is  to  hinder 
the  imputation  to  them  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  or  their  receiving  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  so  that  their  whole  nature  may  be 
developed  in  a  state  of  reconciliation  with  God  i 
Doubtless  this  often  occurs;  but  whether  it  does 
or  not,  their  baptism  stands  good;  it  assures 
them  of  salvation  if  they  do  not  renounce  their 
baptismal  covenant."  (Syst.  Theology,  vol.  3, 
pp.  589,  590.) 

Methodists  believe  in  baptismal  salvation. 
They  call  baptism  a  sacrament  and  ascribe  to  it 
grace.  Sacraments  are  thus  mentioned  in  the 
Discipline:  "Sacraments,  ordained  of  Christ,  are 
not  only  badges  or  tokens  of  Christian  men's 
profession,  but  rather  they  are  certain  signs  of 
grace,  and  God's  good  will  toward  us,  by  tlie 
which  he  does  Avork  invisibly  in  us,  and  doth  not 


178  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

only  quicken,  but  also  strenghten  and  confirm 
our  faith  in  him."    (Discipline,  p.  18.) 

In  the  Administration  of  Infant  Baptism  it  is 
said:  "Dearly  beloved,  forasmuch  as  all  men 
are  conceived  and  born  in  sin,  and  that  our 
Saviour  Christ  saith.  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God:  I  beseech  you  to  call  upon  God 
the  Father,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that 
of  his  bounteous  goodness  he  will  grant  to  this 
child,  now  to  be  baptized  with  water,  that  which 
by  nature  he  cannot  have :  that  he  may  be  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost,  received  into  Christ's 
holy  Church,  and  be  made  a  lively  member  of  the 
same  "     (Discipline,  p.  258.) 

How  baptism  can  give  to  an  infant  that ' '  which 
by  nature  he  cannot  have"  and  be  "made  a 
lively  member  of"  the  Church  I  do  not  know. 
If  this  is  not  baptismal  salvation  I  am  mistaken. 
Indeed,  Dr.  Bledsoe  says :  ' '  Now  the  man  knows 
absolutely  nothing  on  the  subject  of  our  late 
article  (and  had,  therefore,  better  say  nothing), 
who  does  not  know  that,  the  history  of  infant 
baptism,  is,  in  a  very  great  measure,  the  history 
of  baptismal  regeneration  itself.  An  edition  of 
Shakespeare's  Hamlet,  with  the  part  of  Hamlet 
omitted,  would  not  be  a  more  ridiculous  produc- 
tion than  a  history  of  infant  baptism  without  the 
introduction  of  baptismal  regener^^cion."  (South- 
ern Review,  July,  1874,  p.  148.) 


WHAT  IS  JJAPTISM?  179 

Lest  I  may  be  mistaken  in  my  view  of  the  Dis- 
cipline I  shall  give  Wesley's  own  words.  He 
says:  "By  baptism,  we,  who  were  by  ' nature  the 
children  of  wrath,'  are  made  the  children  of  God. 
And  this  regeneration  which  our  church  in  so 
many  places  ascribes  to  baptism  is  more  than 
barely  being  admitted  into  the  Church,  though 
commonly  connected  therewith;  being  grafted 
into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church  we  are  made 
the  children  of  God  by  adoption  and  grace.  This 
is  grounded  on  the  plain  words  of  our  Lord, 
'  Except  a  man  be  born  again  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. ' 
(John  3:5.)  By  water,  then,  as  a  means — the 
water  of  baptism — we  are  regenerated  or  born 
again;  whence  it  is  also  called  by  the  Apostles, 
'the  washing  of  regeneration.'  Our  Church 
therefore  ascribes  no  greater  virtue  to  baptism 
than  Christ  himself  has  done.  Nor  does  she 
ascribe  it  to  the  outward  washing,  but  to  the  in- 
ward grace,  which,  added  thereto,  makes  it  a 
sacrament.  Herein  a  principle  of  grace  is  in- 
fused, which  will  not  be  wholly  taken  away,  un- 
less we  quench  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  by  long 
continued  wickedness. "  (Doctrinal  Tracts,  pp. 
248,  249.) 

The  above  language  cannot  be  explained  so 
that  it  will  not  teach  baptismal  salvation.  Tyer- 
man  thus  comments  upon  it :  "  This  is  strong  and 
somewhat  startling  language,  and  yet  not  really 


180  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

stronger  than  Wesley  used  in  the  sermon  on  the 
New  Birth. "  "In  reference  to  infants  he  unques- 
tionably held  the  high-church  doctrine  of  his 
father.  It  is  no  part  of  our  proposed  task  either 
to  justify  or  to  condemn  this  opinion;  our  sole 
object  is  honestly  to  relate  the  facts."  (Life  of 
Wesley,  vol.  2,  pp.  264,  265.) 

If  there  be  no  sacramental  efficacy  in  these 
ordinances,  why  will  a  Methodist  minister  hasten 
at  midnight  to  baptize  a  dying  infant,  or  give 
the  communion  to  a  dying  man?  Such  a  thing 
has  doubtless  been  done. 

Wesley  makes  baptismal  salvation  his  primary 
reason  for  infant  baptism,  and  it  is  the  only 
ground  upon  which  that  rite  can  be  defended 
He  says:  "If  mfants  are  guilty  of  original  sin, 
then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism;  seeing, 
in  the  ordinary  way,  they  cannot  be  saved,  un- 
less this  be  washed  away  by  baptism.  It  has 
been  already  proved,  that  this  original  stain 
cleaves  to  every  child  of  man;  and  that  hereby 
they  are  children  of  wrath,  and  liable  to  eternal 
damnation.  It  is  true,  the  Second  Adam  has 
found  a  remedy  for  the  disease  which  came  upon 
all  by  the  offense  of  the  first.  But  the  benefit  of 
this  is  to  be  received  through  the  means  which 
he  hath  appointed;  through  baptism  in  particu- 
lar, which  is  the  ordinary  means  which  he  hath 
appointed  for  that  purpose;  and  to  which  God 
hath  tied  us,  though  he  may  not  have  tied  him- 


WHAT  IS  BAPTISM?  181 

self.  Indeed,  where  it  cannot  be  had,  the  case 
is  different;  but  extraordinary  cases  do  not  make 
void  a  standing  rule.  This  therefore  is  our  first 
ground.  Infants  need  to  be  washed  from  origi- 
nal sin;  therefore  they  are  proper  subjects  of 
baptism."     (Doctrinal  Tracts,  pp.  251,  252.) 

The  Disciples,  or  Christian  Church,  hold  the 
doctrine  of  baptismal  salvation.  They  make 
faith,  repentance  and  baptism  as  the  necessary 
conditions  of  salvation.  This  theory  debases  re- 
pentance and  faith  to  mere  carnal  ordinances; 
and  exalts  baptism  to  an  extraordinary  degree. 
That  I  am  not  mistaken  appears  from  the  fol- 
lowing authors: 

Alexander  Campbell  says:  '  'If  blood  can  whiten 
or  cleanse  garments,  certainly  water  can  wash 
away  sins.  There  is,  then,  a  transferring  of  the 
efficacy  of  blood  to  water;  and  a  transferring  of 
the  efficacy  of  water  to  blood.  This  is  a  plain 
solution  of  the  whole  matter.  God  has  trans- 
ferred in  some  Avay,  the  whitening  efiicacy,  or 
cleansing  power,  of  water  to  blood;  and  the  ab- 
solving or  jDardoning  power  of  blood  to  water. 
This  is  done  upon  the  same  principle  as  that  of 
accounting  faith  for  righteousness.  What  a  gra- 
cious institution.  God  has  opened  a  fountain  for 
sin,  for  moral  pollution.  He  has  given  it  an  ex- 
tension far  and  wide  as  sin  has  spread — far  and 
wide  as  water  flows.  Wherever  water,  faith,  and 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  are, 


182  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

there  will  be  found  the  efficacy  of  the  blood  of 
Jesus,  Yes;  as  God  first  gave  the  efficacy  of  water 
to  blood,  he  has  now  given  the  efficacy  of  blood 
to  water.  This,  as  was  said,  is  figurative,  but  it 
is  not  a  figure  that  misleads,  for  the  meaning  is 
given  without  a  figure;  viz:  immersion  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  And  to  him  that  made  the 
washing  of  clay  from  the  eyes,  the  washing  away 
of  blindness,  it  is  competent  to  make  the  immer- 
sion of  the  body  in  water  efficacious  to  the  wash- 
ing away  of  sin  from  the  conscience."  (Millenial 
Harbinger,  Extra,  p.  41,  1830,  vol.  1.) 

Again:  "I  am  bold,  therefore,  to  affirm,  that 
every  one  who,  in  the  belief  of  what  the  Apostle 
spoke,  was  immersed,  did,  in  the  very  instance 
in  which  he  was  put  under  the  water  receive  the 
forgiveness  of  his  sins  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  If  so,  then  who  will  not  concur  with  me 
in  saying  that  Christian  immersion  is  the  gospel 
in  water."     (Christian  Baptist,  p.  417.) 

Once  more:  "If  being  born  of  water  means 
immersion,  as  clearly  proved  by  all  witnesses; 
then,  remission  of  sins  cannot,  in  this  life,  be 
constitutionally  enjoyed  previous  to  immersion. 
If  there  be  any  proposition  regarding  any  item 
of  the  Christian  institution,  wliich  admits  of 
clearer  proof,  or  fuller  illustration  than  this  one, 
I  have  yet  to  learn  where  it  may  be  found." 
(Christian  System,  p.  217.) 

Scores  of  other  passages  can  be  given  from 


WHAT  IS  BAPTISM?  183 

the  writings  of  Mr.  Campbell  quite  as  strong  as 
these. 

Isaac  Errett,  late  editor  of  the  Christian  Stand- 
ard, says:  "The  gospel,  while  proclaiming  jus- 
tification by  faith  to  the  sinner,  has  linked  it 
with  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  ere  the  promise 
'shall  be  saved' can  be  lawfully  approached." 
(Walks  About  Jerusalem,  p.  79.) 

O.  A.  Burgess  says:  "  Is  there  found  anywhere 
in  the  New  Testament  any  other  institution  what- 
ever of  Grod's  appointment  that  sets  forth  the 
pardon  and  acceptance  of  the  sinner  under  the 
figure  of  a  birth?  *  *  *  There  can  no  more  be 
such  a  thing  as  a  birth  into  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  without  water  baptism  than  a  child  can 
be  said  to  be  born  before  it  has  been  really  born 
of  the  mother.  It  is  monstrous  to  suppose  that 
a  single  j^arent  is  requisite  in  the  new  birth  and 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  the  sinner  becom- 
ing a  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus  until  he  comes 
forth  out  of  the  womb  of  the  waters,  and  having 
been  made  dead  to  sin,  is  made  alive  to  God." 
(Thompson-Burgess  Debate,  pp.  203,  204.) 

Moses  E.  Lard  says:  "When  we  cross  the  line 
out  of  the  world  into  the  kingdom  we  cease  to  be 
a  Jew,  cease  to  be  a  Gentile;  and  when  we  cease 
to  be  these  we  cease  to  be  the  children  of  the 
wicked  one,  and  become  the  children  of  God. 
But  we  never  cease  to  be  Jew  and  Gentile  till  we 
enter  Christ  and  we  never  enter  him  till  baptized 


184  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

into  him.  Then,  therefore,  do  we  cease  to  be 
the  children  of  Satan  and  become  the  children  of 
God."    (What  Baptism  is  For,  No.  8,  pp.  5,  6.) 

Robert  T.  Mathfews,  Pastor  at  Lexington,  Ky., 
says:  "It  is  the  representation  of  salvation  in 
reality — the  representation  of  a  real  cleansing 
from  sin,  the  representation  of  a  real  death  to 
sin,  and  of  a  real  resurrection  to  a  new  life — this 
spiritual  realness  alone  giving  sense  and  pro- 
priety to  baptism  in  its  element  and  action.  There 
is  a  real  presence  and  power  of  God  in  baptism. 
'Having  cleansed  it  by  the  washing  of  water 
with  the  word, '  says  Paul  again,  making  baptism 
a  picture  of  purification,  and  so  representing  it 
because  something  more  than  water  is  there — 
the  very  word  of  God  in  all  of  its  spirit  and  life, 
being  there.  *  *  *  Baptism  and  salvation  cou- 
pled in  the  world-wide  commission,  baptism  and 
forgiveness  heard  together  in  Apostolic  preach- 
ing, and  penitent  believers  universally,  readily, 
gladly  baptized — what  was  their  baptism  but  a 
real  confirmation  of  a  real  salvation  in  a  real  ex- 
perience of  their  lives? "'  (Evangelistic  Sermons, 
pp.  123,  124.) 

E.  W.  Herndon  says :  ' '  Then,  a  baptism  for  any 
other  purpose  except  the  remission  of  sins,  is 
not  Christian  baptism;  then  the  elements  of 
Christian  baptism  are,  immersion  in  water  of  a 
believer  for  the  remission  of  sins."'  (Christian 
Review,  1888,  p.  447.) 


WHAT  IS  JiAPTISM?  185 

Growing  out  of  these  views  of  baptism  we  dif- 
fer with  the  whole  pedobaptist  world  on  the  sub- 
ject of  a  converted  church  membership.  We  be- 
lieve that  God's  Word  teaches  that  a  man  should 
be  a  professed  Christian  before  he  unites  with 
the  church;  others  believe  that  the  unconverted 
should  join  the  church  as  a  means  of  grace.  This 
can  be  proved  from  many  sources. 

Presbyterians  hold  to  an  unconverted  mem- 
bership. This  is  plainly  taught  by  the  Presby- 
terian standards.  I  read  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  Article  XXV,  that  the  visible  church  '-con- 
sists of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  i^ro- 
fess  the  true  religion,  togethei^  loith  their  children.^'' 
Again  Article  XXVIII:  "Not  only  those  w^ho  do 
actually  profess  faith  and  obedience  unto  Christ, 
hut  also  the  infants  of  one  or  both  believing  par- 
ents are  to  be  baiDtized."'  In  the  Longer  Cate- 
chism, Question  62:  "What  is  the  visible  church? 
The  visible  church  is  a  society  made  up  of  all 
such  as  in  all  ages  and  places  of  the  world  do 
profess  the  true  religion,  and  of  their  children." 
And  in  the  Form  of  Government,  Chapter  2:  "A 
particular  church  consists  of  a  number  of  -pvo- 
fessing  Christians,  with  their  offspring,  voluntarily 
associated  together,  for  divine  worship,  and 
godly  living,  agreeably  to  the  Holy  Scriptures; 
and  submitting  to  a  certain  form  of  government. " 

The  Confession  of  Faith  is  confirmed  b}"  the 
highest  Presbyterian  authorities. 


186  CLOSE  COMMUNION, 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says:  "The  visible  Church 
does  not  consist  exclusively  of  the  regenerate. 
*  *  *  Our  Lord  expressly  forbids  the  attempt 
being  made.  He  compares  his  external  king- 
dom, or  visible  Church,  to  a  field  in  which  tares 
and  wheat  grow  together.  He  charges  his  dis- 
ciples not  to  undertake  to  separate  them,  be- 
cause they  could  not,  in  all  cases,  distinguish 
the  one  from  the  other.  But  both  may  be  allowed 
to  grow  together  unto  the  harvest. "  (Systematic 
Theology,  vol.  3,  p.  548.) 

Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  says :  ' '  Children  born  within 
the  pale  of  the  visible  Church  are  dedicated  to 
God  in  baptism,  when  they  come  to  years  of  dis- 
cretion, if  they  be  free  from  scandal,  appear 
sober,  and  steady,  and  to  have  sufficient  knowl- 
edge to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  they  ought  to 
be  informed  in  their  duty  and  privilege  to  come 
to  the  Lord's  Supper."  (Page  644.)  Again,  Dr. 
Hodge  states:  "The  Baptist  churches,  denying 
altogether  the  right  of  infant  church  member- 
ship, receive  all  applicants  for  the  communion 
as  from  the  world,  and  therefore  demand  jyositive 
evidences  of  the  new  birth  of  all.  All  the  Psedo- 
baptist  churches,  maintaining  that  all  children 
baptized  in  infancy  are  already  members  of  the 
church,  distinguish  between  the  admission  of 
the  children  of  the  church  to  the  communion  and 
the  admission  de  novo  to  the  church  of  the  un- 
baptized  alien  from  the  world."  (Outlines  of 
Theology,  p.  645.) 


WHAT  IS  BAPTISM?  187 

The  Methodists  receive   unconverted  people 
into  their  church. 

Samuel  P.  Jones,  a  distinguished  Evangelist 
of  that  Church,  says:  "Down  at  Huntsville,  Ala., 
one  of  the  leading  citizens  took  me  out  to  one 
side  and  said:  '  I  want  to  be  a  Christian,  I  want 
to  love  God  and  do  right,  but  I  can't  believe  in 
the  divinity  of  Christ  to  save  my  life.'  'Shut 
your  mouth,'  I  said,  'don't  come  to  me  with  talk 
like  that.  Do  just  like  Christ  told  you  to  do 
and  if  you  don't  make  the  landing  I  will  swim 
out  to  you  and  drown  Avith  you.  You  come  to 
the  meeting  to-night  and  be  the  first  one  up 
there  when  I  call  for  sinners  to  come  forward. ' 
'If  I  join  the  church,  Mr.  Jones,  I  can't  believe.' 
'  Shut  your  mouth,  I  am  prescribing  for  you,  and 
if  you  will  take  my  remedy,  I  will  warrant  the 
cure.'  He  walked  up  and  joined  the  church  that 
night.  I  said:  '  Well,  you  have  joined  the  church; 
you  must  take  up  family  prayer,  and  if  I  call  on 
you  to  pray  in  church  you  must  get  down  and  do 
your  level  best.  I  will  get  you  out  if  you  will 
keep  your  mouth  shut.'  I  led  him  out  sure 
enough.  That  night  he  took  up  family  prayer 
and  started  right.  I  went  back  to  Huntsville 
afterward,  and  asked:  '  How  is  Bro.  Ford  getting 
on? '  '  He  is  the  best  we  have. '  '  How  is  he  on  the 
divinity?'  'O,  he  has  quit  all  of  that  long  ago.' 
If  you  will  give  God  your  heart  he  will  take  care 
of  your  head.    I  don't  know  whether  I  am  ortho- 


188  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

dox  or  not,  but  you  can  attend  to  the  orthodoxy 
when  I  am  gone." 

The  above  extract  does  not  read  like  a  chapter 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

Dr.  T.  O.  Summers  says:  "We  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  no  one  is  eligible  to  baptism  who  has 
not  an  assurance  of  the  pardon  of  his  sin  and  the 
regeneration  of  his  nature,  through  faith  in 
Christ  and  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Par 
from  it.  Of  course,  those  who  enjoy  the  witness 
of  adoption  are  proper  candidates  for  the  ordi- 
nance; but  so  also  are  all  of  those  who  do  not 
enjoy  it,  yet  are  desirous  of  obtaining  it  and  are 
seeking  its  possession.  Indeed,  baptism  is  ad- 
mirably suited  to  their  case.  It  symbolizes  the 
grace  which  they  seek,  and  thus  assists  them  in 
their  efforts  to  acquire  it:  the  ordinance  thus 
proves  a  means  whereby  the  penitent  subject  re 
ceives  the  inward  and  invisible  grace  which  it  is 
designed  to  represent."  (Summers  on  Baptism, 
pp.  21,  22.) 

Holding  as  we  do  these  widely  diverging  views 
from  others,  views  which  in  theii-  very  nature 
are  revolutionary  and  destructive  of  the  founda- 
tion principles  of  pedobaptism,  it  would  be  im- 
possible for  us  to  approach  the  Lord's  Supper 
with  them.  We  hold  that  baptism  is  an  absolute 
qualification  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  infant  baptism  and  an  un- 
converted membership  invalidate  the  ordinance. 


WHAT  IS  RAPT  ISM?  189 

We  cannot,  therefore,  approach  the  Table  with 
such  persons,  because  thereby  we  would  be  par- 
takers of  their  errors  and  disobedience.  This  is 
not  abuse,  but  the  inevitable  conclusion  of  irre- 
sistible logic.  We  are  in  no  wise  responsible  for 
this  state  of  things.  We  put  no  barriers  in  the 
way  of  a  full  and  free  apjiroach  to  the  Lord's 
Table.  We  only  insist  upon  the  divine  order  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  a  perfect  obedience  to  the 
commands  of  Christ.  Our  Pedobaptist  brethren 
are  responsible  for  the  divisions  about  the  Lord's 
Supper;  for  if  they  will  abandon  these  unscrip- 
tural  acts  and  come  back  to  the  simplicity  of  the 
Gospel  we  will  at  once  have,  "One  Lord,  one 
faith,  and  one  baptism." 


190  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

ARE  BAPTISTS  LACKING  IN  CHARITY? 

THE  trouble  in  the  whole  communion  ques- 
tion lies  not  in  what  the  Scriptures  say 
about  it,  but  in  the  anti- scriptural  things  inter- 
jected into  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  things  which  separate  the  Baptists  from 
others  are  not  the  scriptural  terms  of  faith,  bap- 
tism, church  membership  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per; because  on  these  things  for  the  most  part 
we  are  all  agreed,  but  others  insist  in  either 
breaking  down  these  barriers  to  the  table,  or 
adding  other  conditions  upon  which  the  Scrip- 
tures are  silent.  It  is  not  bigotry,  nor  because 
the  Baptists  regard  all  others  as  heathen,  that 
they  keep  a  close  table. 

The  real  difference  between  Baptists  and 
others  is  that  we  hold  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
a  symbolic  act;  while  others  hold  that  the  Sup- 
per is  a  means  of  grace.  We  hold  that  it  is  a 
church  act;  others  make  it  a  test  of  Christian 
fellowship  which  we  never  do.  This  distinction 
is  important,  and  should  constantly  be  borne  in 
mind. 

The  charge  has  been  so  persistently  made  that 
the  Baptists  by  their  practice  unchristianize  all 


ARE  BAPTISTS  LACKING  IN  CHARITY?      191 

Others  that  I  shall  let  some  of  our  representative 
men  speak. 

Rev.  J.M.Pendleton,  D.D.,  and  he  has  a  right  to 
speak  for  Baptist  people,  says:  "  Baptists  do  not 
deny  that  there  are  pious  men  and  women  in 
Pedobaptist  churches,  so  called,  but  they  do  deny 
that  these  churches  are  formed  according  to  the 
New  Testament  model.  They  are  without  bap- 
tism, and,  to  use  the  words  of  a  very  distin- 
guished Pedobaptist,  Dr.  E.  D.  Griflin,  'where 
there  is  no  baptism,  there  are  no  visible 
churches.'"     (Baptist  Principles,  p.  172.) 

Dr.  John  A.  Broadus,  President  of  the  South- 
ern Baptist  Theological  Seminary,  says:  "The 
blessing  thus  received  is  not  supposed  to  be 
essentially  different  in  kind  from  other  spiritual 
blessings,  nor  to  be  associated  with  mere  divine 
appointment  with  this  particular  means  of  grace. 
Hence  no  spiritual  loss  is  necessarily  inflicted  by 
failing  to  invite  to  this  ceremony  persons  who 
have  made  a  credible  oral  profession  of  faith,  but 
have  not  yet  submitted  to  the  prerequisite  cere- 
mony."   (Commentary  Matt.,  p.  530.) 

Dr.  A.  Hovey,  President  of  Newton  Theolog- 
ical Seminary,  says:  "Most  of  the  diflficulty,  if 
not  indeed  all  of  it,  which  is  felt  in  many  minds 
in  relation  to  our  practice  as  Baptists  on  the  sub- 
ject of  communion  at  the  Lord's  table,  has  arisen 
from  the  habit  so  common  among  people  of  con- 
foundinof  Christian  communion  with  Church  com- 


192  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

munion.  But  they  are  separate  and  distinct  acts, 
and  ought  not  to  be  thus  confounded.  Let  this 
distinction  be  fairly  understood  and  properly 
observed,  and  we  shall  hear  much  less  about  the 
'  exclusiveness, '  or  '  illiberality , '  or  '  bigotry, '  of 
the  Baptists  in  their  spiritual  observance  of  this 
significant  and  impressive  ordinance  of  the  Gos- 
pel. This  ordinance  is  not  a  test  of  Christian 
fellowship,  and  cannot  be  so  used  without  per- 
verting its  spiritual  design." 

Prof.T.F.  Curtis,  an  able  writer  on  Communion, 
says:  "  True  communion  is  a  spiritual — and  not  a 
visible  thing.  It  may,  in  part,  be  symbolized,  as  in 
united  prayer, or  the  Lord's  Supper;  but  no  Chris- 
tian ever  yet,  on  the  most  extensive  sacramental 
occasion,  partook  of  the  same  elements  with  one 
thousandth  part  of  those  with  whom  he  would 
acknowledge  true  Christian  communion,  for  this 
he  has,  with  all  saints  in  heaven,  as  well  as  on 
earth.  Nor  will  the  two  ever  be  co-extensive, 
until  he  shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and 
Jacob,  to  eat  bread  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  at  the 
marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb."  (Curtis  on 
Communion,  p.  35.) 

Dr.  W.  W.  Gardner  in  his  able  work  on  Church 
Communion  distinguishes  between  Christian  and 
church  communion.  He  says:  "Christian  com- 
munion is  based  upon  Christian  fellowship. 
Christian  communion  extends  to  all  Christians, 
as  such,  irrespective  of  positive  ordinances  and 


ARE  BAPTISTS  LACKING  IX  CHARITY?      193 

visible  church  relations,  and  embraces  all  those 
scriptural  acts  and  exercises  by  and  in  which 
mutual  Christian  fellowship  is  expressed  and 
enjoyed.  Such  communion  is  fully  enjoyed  in 
heaven. 

"Church  communion  is  based  upon  church 
fellowship,  growing  out  of  mutual  church  rela- 
tions. Church  communion  is  necessarily  limited 
to  the  members  of  the  same  particular  church, 
for  such  only  sustain  mutual  church  relations. 
It  embraces  all  of  those  church  acts  and  privi- 
leges by  which  church  fellowship  is  expressed 
and  enjoyed,  and  in  which  none  but  members  of 
the  same  church  have  a  right  to  participate." 
(Church  Communion,  pp.  22,  23.) 

Dr.  P.  H.  Mell,  late  Chancellor  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Greorgia,  says:  "There  can  be  no  scrip- 
tural communion  excepting  as  performed  by  a 
local  gospel  church;  there  can  be  no  local  gospel 
church  excepting  as  composed  of  individual 
members;  there  can  be  no  individual  members 
excepting  as  they  are  received  on  a  vote  of  a 
local  church ;  none  are  eligible  to  be  voted  for  as 
church  members  excepting  such  as  have  been 
baptized  on  a  profession  of  their  faith  in  Christ; 
nothing  is  scriptural  baptism  but  immersion 
upon  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ;  therefore, 
there  can  be  no  scriptural  communion  which  has 
not  been  preceded  by  that  ordinance,  scriptural 
immersion."'     (Ford's  Repos.,  1878,  p.  251.) 

13 


194  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Dr.  Armitage  says:  "If  fellowship  amongst 
Christians  is  purchased  by  sitting  with  each 
other  at  the  same  table,  their  love  is  bought  at  a 
very  light  cost.  Oneness  with  Christ  himself, 
the  brotherhood  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  mutual  burden-bearing  and  mutual  watch- 
care,  formed  the  visible  bond  of  fellowship  in 
the  Apostolic  Churches.  This  sort  of  unity  cost 
them  something,  it  was  not  a  vaporing  senti- 
ment, it  was  worth  all  that  it  cost.  There  is  not 
a  case  in  ecclesiastical  history  where  the  Supper 
has  held  any  single  congregation  together  for  a 
day.  Churches  of  all  names  who  celebrate  it 
constantly,  live  in  open  contention  year  by  year. 
The  love  of  Judas  for  John  was  cramped  into  a 
close  corner  when  they  sat  at  the  same  table,  and 
ate  the  sop  from  the  same  dish.  If  Christians 
are  not  one  on  a  much  higher  plane  than  that 
of  eating  and  drinking  the  Supper  with  each 
other,  their  true  unity  is  a  hopeless  business. 
In  fact,  as  if  to  prove  the  perfect  emptiness  of 
this  pretension,  in  some  Protestant  commun- 
ions, the  Supper  itself  has  been  the  subject  of 
hot  dispute,  the  chief  bone  of  contention  from 
century  to  century.  The  greatest  bitterness  has 
been  indulged,  and  anathemas  have  been  bandied 
about,  pro  and  con,  with  a  freedom  which  has 
marked  no  other  form  of  discussion,  and  by 
men,  who  regularly  meet  at  the  same  table." 
(History  Baptists,  pp.  146,  147.) 


ARE  BAPTISTS  LACKING  IN  CHARITY?      195 

These  are  all  representative  Baptists.  They 
unanimously  declare  that  Baptists  i:)ass  no  sen- 
tence of  disfranchisement  upon  any.  They  be- 
lieve that  tlie  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  church  ordinance;  and  they  do  not  extend  it 
beyond  their  own  discipline.  The  attitude  of 
Baptists  on  this  subject  is  not  one  of  war  but  of 
strict  neutrality.  Dr.  W.  C.  Wilkinson  aptly  puts 
it:  "  Restricted  communion,  as  practiced  by  Bap- 
tists, is  not  positive,  it  is  strictly  negative.  It 
does  not  turn  away;  it  simply  does  not  invite. 
Not  inviting,  it  naturally  does  not  accept  invita- 
tions. This  is  really  tVie  whole.  Restricted  com- 
munion does  nothing  more  than  just  maintain 
this  attitude  of  not  doing.  What  could  be  less 
offensive?"  (Baptist  Principles,  p.  199.) 

With  us  it  is  solely  a  matter  of  principle,  and 
not  of  impatience  toward  others.  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge,  and  I  am  glad  to  agree  with  this  eminent 
Presbyterian,  puts  this  in  a  strong  way.  He  says: 
"As  Christ  is  the  only  head  of  the  Church  it  fol- 
lows that  its  allegiance  is  to  him,  and  that  when- 
ever those  out  of  the  Church  undertake  to  regu- 
late its  affairs,  or  to  curtail  its  liberties,  its  mem- 
bers are  bound  to  obey  him  rather  than  men. 
They  are  bound  by  all  legitimate  means  to  resist 
such  usurpations,  and  to  stand  fast  in  the  liberty 
where  with  Christ  has  made  them  free.  They 
are  under  equal  obligation  to  resist  all  undue 
assumption  of  authority  by   those  within    the 


196  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Church,  whether,  it  be  the  brotherhood  or  by- 
individual  officers,  or  by  Church  councils  or 
courts.  The  allegiance  of  the  people  terminates 
on  Christ.  They  are  bound  to  obey  others  only 
so  far  as  obedience  to  them  is  obedience  to  Him. 
In  the  early  ages  some  endeavored  to  impose  on 
Christians  the  yoke  of  the  Jewish  law.  This,  of 
course,  they  were  bound  to  resist.  In  the  fol- 
lowing centuries,  and  by  degrees,  the  intolerable 
rituals,  ceremonies,  fasts,  festivals,  and  priestly, 
prelatical,  and  papal  assumptions,  which  oppress 
so  large  a  part  of  the  Christian  world,  have  been 
imposed  on  the  people  in  derogation  to  the  au- 
thority of  Christ  as  the  sole  head  of  the  Church. 
Councils,  provincial  and  ecumenical,  have  not 
only  prescribed  creeds,  contrary  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  also  have  made  laws  to  bind  the  con- 
science, and  ordained  observances  which  Christ 
never  enjoined.  As  Christ  is  the  head  of  his 
earthly  kingdom,  so  is  he  its  only  lawgiver.  He 
prescribes  the  terms  of  admission  into  his  king- 
dom. These  cannot  be  rightfully  altered  by  any 
human  authority.  Men  can  neither  add  to  them, 
nor  detract  from  them. "  (Systematic  Theology, 
vol.  2,  pp.  606,  607.) 

To  all  of  which  we  say  amen  and  amen. 


POSITIVE  AND  MORAL  LAW.  197 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

POSITIVE  AND  MORAL  LAW. 

T  has  always  occurred  to  me  that  the  advocates 
of  open  communion  have  confounded  two 
things  that  are  widely  different — positive  and 
moral  law.  A  moral  law  is  right  in  the  nature 
of  things,  and  is  based  upon  the  immutable  and 
universal  jDrinciples  of  truth  and  justice.  On  the 
other  hand  positive  law  depends  for  its  authority 
upon  the  will  of  the  divine  Lawgiver.  A  moral 
duty  is  commanded  because  it  is  right,  a  positive 
duty  is  right  because  it  is  commanded.  A  moral 
law  can  be  obeyed  in  any  way  that  comports 
with  its  spirit:  a  positive  law  must  be  obeyed  to 
its  very  letter.  Of  this  kind  is  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  We  have  no  choice  save 
to  obey  the  laws  of  its  observance  as  given  in 
the  New  Testament. 

The  Bible  puts  great  emphasis  upon  the  obe- 
dience of  positive  law,  and  signal  have  been  the 
punishments  inflicted  upon  those  who  have  vio- 
lated positive  laws.  Adam  and  Eve  were  driven 
from  the  garden  as  the  result  of  the  disobedience 
of  a  positive  law.  Moses  was  not  permitted  to 
see  the  promised  land,  and  Saul  was  rejected  as 
Kmg  of  Israel,   all  because  of  disobedience  of 


198  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

positive  law.  These  examples  show  us,  that 
God  does  not  treat  lightly  a  disobedience  of  any 
of  his  commands.  It  is  not  a  question  of  ' '  essen- 
tials or  non-essentials,"  but  how  can  I  obey  the 
Lord. 

The  Nashville  Christian  Advocate,  in  a  recent 
editorial  laid  down  the  right  principle:  "But 
when  the  proposition  is  made  to  change  the 
nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper  *  *  *  we  are  against 
that,  now  and  forever.  The  canon  of  accommo- 
dating Scripture  to  our  own  ideas  and  changing 
the  constitutional  principles  in  the  interest  of 
these  views,  is  rationalism  of  the  most  irrational 
and  ruinous  kind.  When  our  pet  views  lead  us 
to  criticise  the  acts  of  Christ,  or  change  the  prin- 
ciples and  institutions  that  he  established,  it  is 
time  for  us  to  halt  and  retrace  our  steps  and  re- 
model our  views." 

Bishop  Hoadly,  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  is 
much  to  the  point.  He  says :  ' '  The  partaking  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  a  duty  of  itself,  or  a 
duty  apparent  to  us  from  the  nature  of  things, 
but  a  duty  made  such  to  Christians  by  the  posi- 
tive institution  of  Jesus  Christ.  All  positive 
duties,  or  duties  made  such  by  institution  alone, 
depend  entirely  on  the  will  and  declaration  of 
the  person  who  institutes  or  ordains  them  with 
respect  to  the  real  design  and  end  of  them,  and 
consequently  to  the  due  manner  of  performing 
them.     For  there  being  no  other  foundation  for 


POSITIVE  AND  MORAI^  LAW.  199 

them  with  regard  to  us,  but  the  will  of  the  insti- 
tutor,  this  will  must,  of  necessity,  be  our  sole 
direction,  both  as  to  our  understanding  their  true 
intent,  and  practicing  them  accordingly;  because 
we  can  have  no  other  direction  in  this  sort  of 
duties,  unless  we  will  have  recourse  to  mere  in- 
vention, which  makes  them  our  own  institutions, 
and  not  the  institutions  of  those  who  first  ap- 
pointed them.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the 
nature,  the  design,  and  the  due  manner  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  must,  of  necessity,  depend  on 
what  Jesus  Christ,  who  instituted  it,  has  said 
about  it."    (Works,  vol.  3,  p.  845.) 

Just  here  comes  in  the  mistake,  and  misappre- 
hension, that  exists  in  so  many  minds.  The 
' '  communion  of  saints  "  is  confounded  with  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Communion  of  saints  is  morally 
right;  it  is  one  of  the  things  that  will  happen  of 
its  own  accord.  I  heartily  believe  in  "the  com- 
munion of  saints."  But  there  is  a  vast  difference 
between  Church  communion  and  Christian  com- 
munion. They  are  separate  and  distinct  acts 
and  should  never  be  confounded.  With  the  Bap- 
tists Church  communion  is  no  test  of  Christian 
fellowship.  Here  is  where  we  are  often  misun- 
derstood. Wlien  we  gather  around  the  Lord's 
table  it  is  not  to  show  our  love  for  one  another, 
or  our  opinion  of  others;  but  to  show  forth  the 
Lord's  death  till  he  come  again.     It  is  not  a  test 


200  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

of  Christian  fellowship  at  all.  Before  one  calls 
us  illiberal,  it  would  be  well  for  him  to  under- 
stand our  position. 

There  is  not  an  example  in  the  Scriptures 
where  the  Lord's  Supper  is  made  a  test  of  Chris- 
tian charity.  It  is  always  declared  to  have 
another  design.  In  Matt.  26:28,30,  it  "is  the 
blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  His  atoning 
blood  is  the  great  theme  of  the  Scriptures.  In 
1  Cor.  11:24-29,  is  the  additional  idea  that  we  do 
this  "in  remembrance"  of  what  Christ  has  done 
for  us.  The  eloquent  Melvill  caught  the  spirit 
of  this  when  he  said:  "Inasmuch  as  the  bread 
and  the  wine  represent  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Saviour,  the  administration  of  this  ordinance  is 
so  commemorative  of  Christ's  having  been  of- 
fered as  a  sacrifice,  that  we  seem  to  have  before 
us  the  awful  and  mysterious  transaction,  as 
though  again  were  the  cross  reared,  and  the 
words,  '  It  is  finished, '  pronounced  in  our  hear- 
ing." (Thoughts,  p.  240.)  Of  course  we  cannot 
call  to  recollection  brethren  who  are  present 
with  us.  We  are  not  to  fasten  our  minds  upon 
our  brethren;  but  upon  the  all  sufficiency  of  the 
grace  of  God  and  his  wonderful  work  for  us. 

The  very  moment  we  turn  our  eyes  from  these 
lofty  themes,  and  commence  to  think  about  our- 
selves and  others,   we   degrade   this  memorial 


POSITIVE  AND  MORAL  LAW.  201 

feast.  It  is  not  of  tlesh  and  blood  that  we  are  to 
think,  but  of  the  crucified  and  exalted  Christ. 
It  is  not  a  communion,  or  feast,  with  our  breth- 
ren, but  with  Christ. 

This  forever  does  away  with  much  sentimen- 
tality about  "communion  with  mother,"  and  my 
great  "liberality,"  and  "how  bigoted  somebody 
else  is." 


202  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

OPEN   COMMUNION   DESTROYS   GOSPEL  DIS- 
CIPLINE. 

ONE  of  the  most  fatal  objections  to  open 
communion  is  that  it  breaks  down  all  bar- 
riers to  the  Lord's  table,  puts  it  beyond  church 
discipline,  and  allows  the  profane  and  profligate 
to  participate.  The  Scriptures  undoubtedly 
place  the  observance  of  the  Supper  under  the 
control  of  the  church,  and  does  not  extend  it  be- 
yond the  discipline  of  the  church.  The  church 
cannot  divest  itself  of  responsibility  as  to  the 
character  of  its  communicants.  This  is  the  exact 
idea  of  the  Greek  Koinonia,  communion. 

Here  is  the  authority  of  the  Greek  Lexicons. 

Thayer  says:  "Fellowship,  association,  com- 
munity, joint  participation,  intercourse."  And 
the  verb  is  defined,  ' '  to  make  one's  self  a  sharer 
or  partner." 

Liddell  and  Scott  says:  "Association,  partner- 
ship, society." 

The  commentators  are  also  agreed. 

Meyer  says:  "This  is  the  theocratic  bond  of 
participation,  whereby  the  man  stands  bound  to 
the  sacrificial  altar,  who  eats  of  the  sacrifice  be- 
longing to  it  as  such.    The  Israelite  who  refused 


OPEN  COMMUNION  DESTROYS.  203 

to  eat  of  the  tlesh  of  the  sacrifice  as  such,  would 
thereby  practically  declare  that  he  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  altar,  but  stood  aloof  from  the 
sphere  of  theocratic  connection  with  it.  The 
man  on  the  other  hand,  who  ate  a  portion  of  the 
flesh  offered  upon  the  altar,  gave  proof  of  the 
religious  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the  altar 
itself."    (Com.  1  Cor.  10:18.) 

The  reasoning  is  conclusive.  By  participating 
at  the  Lord's  table  together  we  declare  ourselves 
to  be  partners,  and  members  of  the  same  organi- 
zation, or  church,  and  mutually  responsible  for 
the  right  administration  of  the  supper.  Only 
members  of  the  one  body,  the  church,  can  join 
in  this  participation,  since  no  others  can  be 
partners  in  this  matter.  Paul's  reasoning  is  to 
the  point.  He  says:  "The  cup  of  blessing  which 
we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a 
communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?  Seeing  that 
we  who  are  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body : 
for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread.  Behold 
Israel  after  the  flesh:  have  not  they  which  eat 
the  sacrifices  communion  with  the  altar?  What 
say  I  then?  That  a  thing  sacrificed  to  idols  is 
anything,  or  that  an  idol  is  anything?  But  I  say, 
that  the  things  which  the  Gentiles  sacrifice,  they 
sacrifice  to  devils,  and  not  to  God;  and  I  would 
not  that  ye  should  have  communion  with  devils. 
Ye  cannot  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the 


204  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

cup  of  devils:  ye  cannot  partake  of  the  table  of 
the  Lord,  and  of  the  tables  of  devils. "  (1  Cor. 
10:16-21,  Revised  Version.)  We  are  therefore 
persuaded  that  the  joint  participation  in  the  sup- 
per means  a  joint  membership  in  the  church. 

Dr.  Hibbard  says:  "Those  who  meet  at  the 
Lord's  table  signify  thereby  that  they  have 
mutual  fellowship  in  the  faith,  experience  and 
practice  of  the  gospel.  Hence,  Paul  calls  it  the 
'communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ;' 
'  for  we,  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body; 
for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread. ' "'  Or 
says  Dr.  A.  Clarke:  "The  original  would  be  bet- 
ter translated  thus :  '  Because  there  is  one  bread, 
or  loaf,  we,  who  are  many,  are  one  body. '  (1  Cor. 
10:16, 17. )  This  feasting  together  declares  a  com- 
munity of  interest  in  the  merits  of  the  same 
Jesus  whose  sacrificial  death  is  exhibited  in  the 
distributed  elements,  and  proves  the  disciples  of 
Christ  to  be  '  one  body.'  How,  then,  can  an  or- 
dinance which  manifestly  declares  its  recipients, 
though  '  many '  individuals,  to  be  '  one  body, '  be 
administered  to  those  who  are  not  of  that 
body?"    (On  Baptism,  P.  2,  p.  185.) 

The  Advance,  of  Chicago,  an  able  Congrega- 
tional journal,  reasons  thus,  in  an  editorial,  No- 
vember 10th,  1868:  "It  is  a  mistake,  contrary  to 
the  name,  the  idea,  and  the  apostolic. description 
of  this  sacrament,  to  make  it  only  the  sign  of  a 
faith  in  Christ,   by  the  individual.     The  word 


OPEN  COMMUNION  DESTROYS.  205 

koinonia,  communion,  contradicts  it,  meaning  the 
common  participation  of  many  in  sign  of  their 
being  one,  as  Paul  explains  it.  First  Corinthians 
x:16,17,  '  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is 
it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ? 
The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  com- 
munion of  the  body  of  Christ?  For  we  being 
many  are  one  bread  and  one  body ;  for  we  are  all 
partakers  of  that  one  bread. '  A  church  cannot, 
then,  divest  itself  of  all  responsibility  for  fellow 
communicants.  If  any  ordinance  is  in  meaning 
and  act  purely  an  individual  acknowledgment  of 
Christ,  in  which  the  recipient  alone  is  concerned, 
and  others  are  not  responsible,  baptism  may  be 
so  considered.  The  Supper,  on  the  contrary,  is 
the  appointed  method  of  expressing  our  com- 
munion with  each  other;  and  this  is  the  very 
ground  of  our  complaint  against  the  Baptists, 
that  by  their  close  communion  they  withhold 
the  appointed  sign  of  fellowship  from  visible, 
professed  Christians,  who  are  organized  as  such 
into  churches,  and  whose  spiritual  character  they 
neither  deny  nor  doubt.  It  is  the  Lord's  table, 
and  we  express  a  general  confidence  in  the  Chris- 
tian character  of  those  who  are  invited  to  par- 
take with  us,  and  are  bound,  therefore,  reason- 
ably to  protect  it  from  improper  approach  by 
requiring  that  those  who  come  to  it  should  be 
members  of  Christian  churches." 

The  Tndependent  in  an  editorial,  August  18th, 


206  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

1892,  says:  "A  leading  Baptist  paper  in  the 
United  States  says:  'There  is  for  the  open  com- 
munion Baptist  nothing  to  justify  a  separation 
from  his  pedo-Baptist  brethren.' 

' '  This  is  perfectly  correct.  There  is  no  reason 
whatever  why  open  communion  Baptists,  like 
the  free  Baptists,  for  example,  should  form  a 
separate  denomination  from  Christians  who  hold 
the  same  faith  and  the  same  form  of  govern- 
ment, but  who  usually  baptize  by  a  different 
method.  If  they  can  fellowship  as  churches  in 
separate  denominations,  they  can  fellowship  as 
churches  in  the  same  denomination.  If  Free 
Baptists  and  Congregationalists,  for  example, 
are  not  united  in  one  denomination,  it  is  not  be- 
cause they  are  kept  apart  by  anything  essential 
or  anything  which  they  think  to  be  important, 
but  simply  because  they  have  not  taken  the 
trouble  to  come  together.  That  they  have  not 
taken  the  trouble  is  not  to  their  credit. 

' '  Close  communion  is  the  only  logical  position 
which  can  be  taken  by  those  who  believe  that 
all  other  denominations  except  themselves  dis- 
obey a  plain,  binding  command  of  God.  That  is 
the  position  which  close  communion  Baptists 
take.  They  say  that  the  command  is  to  believe 
and  be  baptized,  and  that  the  two  commands  are 
equally  binding  even  if  not  of  equal  saving 
value." 

All  that  I  am  insisting  upon  is  that  the  Lord's 


OPEN  COMMUNION  DESTROYS.  207 

Supper  is  a  cliurch  ordinance,  and  that  no  one 
can  participate  in  it  who  is  not  subject  to  the 
discipline  of  the  churcli.  Dr.  Hibbard,  the  great 
Methodist,  frankly  says:  "On  the  contrary,  the 
eucharist,  from  its  very  nature,  is  a  church  ordi- 
nance and  as  such  can  be  properly  participated 
in  only  by  church  members.  As  a  church  ordi- 
nance, it  can  never  be  carried  out  of  the  church. 
This  is  so  evident  that  no  words  can  make  it 
more  j^lain,  or  add  to  its  force."  (Hibbard  on 
Baptism,  P.  2,  p.  185.) 

The  Scriptures  are  plain.  All  who  will  not 
obey  the  commands  of  Christ  are  to  be  treated  as 
disorderly,  and  no  disorderly  person  is  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Lord's  Supper.  "Now  we  com- 
mand you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from 
every  brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not 
after  the  tradition  received  of  us.  And  if  any 
man  obey  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note 
that  man,  and  have  no  company  with  him,  that 
he  may  be  ashamed."  (2  Thes.  S:Q,14:.)  And  that 
this  is  to  api^ly  to  the  Lord's  Supper  we  are 
plainly  told :  ' '  But  now  I  have  written  unto  you 
not  to  keep  comjjany,  if  any  man  that  is  called  a 
brother  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idol- 
ater, or  a  railer,  or  a  drunkard,  or  an  extortioner; 
with  such  a  one  no  not  to  eat."  (1  Cor.  5:11.) 

If  this  is  not  true,  church  discipline  is  worse 
than  useless.    An  open  communion  church  could 


208  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

turn  out  a  member  for  outrageous  wickedness,  to- 
morrow he  goes  and  joins  some  other  denomina- 
tion, and  the  next  Sunday,  when  the  open  com- 
munion table  is  spread,  he  comes  up  smiling,  and 
communes  with  the  very  church  that  excluded 
him.  The  result  of  the  whole  matter  is  that  the 
church  is  disgraced;  its  discipline  dishonored  and 
rendered  nugatory,  and  all  on  account  of  the  un- 
reasonable practice  that  is  called  open  com- 
munion. 

I  quote  again  from  the  Advance:  "As  to  the 
effect  of  a  table  open  to  all,  it  appears  to  us  to 
be  subversive  of  church  discipline,  and  to  tend 
in  the  end  to  decrease  rather  than  to  increase 
the  number  of  attendants. 

'  *  Of  what  use  is  it  to  excommunicate  a  repro- 
bate, by  vote  of  a  church,  during  the  week,  and 
then  to  communicate  with  him  if  he  chooses  to 
come,  at  one  of  these  open  tables,  on  the  next 
Lord's  day!  And  then  the  Unitarians  and  13 ni- 
versalists,  practicing  on  that  plan,  have  found 
that  few  wanted  what  everybody  could  have. 
When  the  boundary  line  of  church  and  world  is 
thus  removed,  there  is  no  rush  into  the  church, 
because  church  ceases  to  mean  anything.  In  no 
denomination  is  the  Lord's  table  so  crowded  as 
where  it  is  made  strictly  a  church  ordinance,  and 
no  one  is  invited  unless  he  has  openly  and  per- 
manently professed  Christ  by  uniting  with  the 
church." 


OPEN  COMMUNION  DESTROYS.  209 

If  the  Supi^er  is  not  under  the  control  of  the 
church,  who  is  responsible  for  its  right  adminis- 
tration? Will  you  say  there  are,  and  ought  to  be, 
no  limits  thrown  around  the  Lord's  table?  Will 
you  say  that  devils  and  wicked  men  ought  to  sit 
down  to  it,  and  make  it  a  feast  of  drunken  mad- 
ness instead  of  Christian  joy?  If  there  are  quali- 
fications, who  is  to  judge  of  those  qualifications? 
Manifestly  the  church  of  God.  By  all  of  these 
admissions  it  would  necessary  follow  that  in  pre- 
scribing terms  to  the  Lord's  table  we  have  not 
gone  beyond  our  right.  But  rather,  we  have 
taken  the  terms  prescribed  in  the  word  of  God, 
and  thrown  them  around  the  table  as  a  safe- 
guard. We  propose  to  be  liberal,  and  no  more 
liberal,  than  was  Christ  our  Lord.  You  talk 
much  about  a  common  table,  why  not  have  a 
common  baptism?  If  you  will  obey  the  commands 
of  the  Bible,  there  will  be  no  strife  on  this  subject. 

Hence  George  T.  Ladd  says:  "But  this  right 
of  discipline  cannot  be  duly  exercised,  except 
upon  the  principle  of  a  regenerate  membership. 
The  wrong  in  communing  in  the  most  holy  sac- 
raments acts  with  these,  who,  neither  in  faith 
nor  conduct,  claimed  the  spiritual  communion 
upon  which  the  sacraments  take  place,  could  be 
amended  only  by  an  application  of  the  same  prin- 
ciple. 'The  people  are  the  church,'  said  Robin- 
son, '  and  to  make  a  reformed  church  there  must 
first  be  a  reformed  people.'     It  is  only  by  the 


210  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

grace  of  God  in  their  hearts,  he  goes  on  to  main- 
tain, that  the  people,  '  being  first  fitted  for  and 
made  capable  of  the  sacraments  and  other  ordi- 
nances, might  afterward  have  communicated  in 
the  pure  use  of  them.'  Christ  believed  on  and 
confession  is,  in  judgment  of  them  all,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  words  of  Davenport,  'the  rock 
whereon  a  particular  visible  church  is  built. '  It 
was,  therefore,  as  a  fundamental  doctrine,  almost 
without  a  single  exception  even  so  much  as 
questioned  by  our  early  authorities,  that  the 
Cambridge  Platform  laid  down  its  definitions." 
(Principles  of  Church  Polity,  p.  51.) 

And  there  is  no  way  to  purify  the  church  ex- 
cept by  discipline. 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  liberality,  but  of  church 
duty,  to  reject  from  the  table  of  the  Lord  those 
who  have  never  obeyed  the  requirements  of 
God's  word.  Dr.  Hibbard,  and  I  am  delighted 
to  agree  so  readily  with  this  great  Methodist, 
makes  another  point  so  just  that  I  am  constrained 
to  quote  him  again.  "If  it  be  a  responsible  act 
to  reject  them,"  says  he,  "in  the  absence  of  an 
express  interdict;  certainly  it  is  not  less  respon- 
sible to  admit  them  in  the  absence  of  an  express 
comm^and.  If,  in  rejecting  them,  there  is  danger 
of  offending  a  'little  one  that  believes'  in  Christ; 
so  also,  in  receiving  them,  there  is  danger  of 
diverting  the  ordinance  from  its  intended  aj)pli- 
cation,  and  profaning  its  sanctity.     If  express 


OPEN  COMMUNION  DESTROYS.  211 

precept  is  what  the  advocates  of  mixed  commun- 
ion demand,  certainly  they  are  in  no  better  case 
than  we  are.  And  we  have  the  same  authority 
for  rejecting,  as  they  have  for  receiving  unbap- 
tized  persons  to  the  table  of  the  Lord;  and,  as 
far  as  we  can  judge,  they  incur  a  responsibility 
of  no  less  magnitude  than  we  ourselves.  The 
truth  is,  that  the  preponderance  of  Scrip- 
ture EVIDENCE  IS  against  MIXED  COMMUN- 
ION."   (On  Baptism,  p.  186.) 


212  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

INFANT  COMMUNION. 

I  HAVE  already  showed  that  our  terms  of  com- 
munion are  as  liberal  as  those  of  any  other 
denomination  of  Christians.  May  I  suggest  that 
we  are  more  liberal  at  the  Lord's  table  than  the 
most  of  Christian  denominations.  We  do  com- 
mune with  our  own  membership,  the  most  of 
other  denominations  do  not.  The  Methodists  do 
not  commune  with  all  of  their  members.  The 
Presbyterians  do  not.  These  denominations  have 
baptized  members  that  are  not  admitted  to  their 
own  table.  An  infant,  though  it  may  have  been 
made  "federally  holy,"  or  "brought  by  baptism 
into  the  Church  of  Christ,"  is  excluded  from  a 
Methodist  or  Presbyterian  communion  table. 
We  are  at  least  liberal  enough  to  commune  with 
our  own  members. 

I  am  not  trifling.  There  is  quite  as  much  to 
prove  infant  communion  as  there  is  to  prove  in- 
fant baptism.  They  rest  upon  the  same  argu- 
ment; and  the  traditional  history  that  would 
prove  the  antiquity  of  the  one  would  prove  the 
antiquity  of  the  other.  The  Greek  Church  when 
it  baptizes  an  infant  also  admits  it  to  the  Lord's 
table  and  feeds  the  child  with  a  spoon. 


INFANT  COMMUNION.  213 

I  shall  introduce  some  authorities  on  infant 
communion. 

Bingham  says :  Nor  was  this  confirmation  after 
baptism  "only  true  with  respect  to  adult  per- 
sons, but  also  with  respect  to  infants,  who  were 
anciently  confirmed  with  the  imposition  of  hands 
and  the  holy  chrism,  or  unction,  as  soon  as  they 
were  baptized;  which  will,  perhaps,  seem  a  para- 
dox to  many  who  look  no  further  than  the  prac- 
tice of  later  ages:  but  it  may  be  undeniably 
learned  in  two  waj^s.  1.  From  the  plain  testi- 
mony of  the  ancients  declaring  it  to  be  so;  and 
2.  From  that  known  custom  and  usage  of  the 
church,  in  giving  the  eucharist  to  infants,  which 
ordinarily  presujiposes  their  confirmation. "  (An- 
tiquities Christian  Church,  B.  XII,  C.  1,  vol.  1, 
p.  544.) 

Salmasius,  a  learned  Catholic,  says:  "It  was 
the  invariable  practice  to  give  the  catechumens 
the  eucharist  immediately  after  they  were  bap- 
tized. Afterwards  the  opinion  prevailed  that  no 
one  could  be  saved  unless  he  were  baptized,  so 
the  custom  of  baptizing  infants  was  introduced. 
And  because  to  adult  catechumens,  as  soon  as 
they  were  baptized,  no  space  of  time  intervening, 
the  eucharist  was  given,  so  after  pedobaptism 
was  introduced,  this  was  also  done  in  the  case  of 
infants."     (Trans.,  p.  495.) 

Bishop  Bossuet  affirms:  "The  church  has  al- 
ways believed,  and  still  believes,  that  infants  are 


214  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

capable  of  receiving  the  eucharist  as  well  as 
baptism,  and  finds  no  more  obstacle  to  their  com- 
munion in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  '  Let  a  man  ex- 
amine himself  and  so  let  him  eat; '  than  she  finds 
to  their  baptism  in  these  words  of  the  Lord, 
'  Teach  and  baptize. '  But  as  she  knew  that  the 
eucharist  could  not  be  absolutely  necessary  to 
their  salvation,  after  they  had  received  the  full 
remission  of  sins  in  their  baptism,  she  believed 
it  was  a  matter  of  discipline  to  give  or  not  to 
give  the  communion  in  this  age;  thus  it  is  that 
during  the  first  eleven  or  twelve  centuries  she, 
for  good  reasons,  gave  it;  and  for  other  reasons, 
equally  good,  has  since  then  ceased  to  give  it." 
(Traite  Com.,  P.  i,  p.  3.) 

Gieseler  says:  "The  use  of  exorcism  is  dis- 
tinctly mentioned,  and  all  who  had  been  baptized, 
even  the  children,  partook  of  the  eucharist." 
(Church  History,  vol.  1,  p.  159.) 

Lundy,  Episcopalian,  says:  "All,  therefore, 
whether  young  or  old,  whether  infants  at  the 
breast  or  those  who  had  attained  their  full 
growth  and  maturity  of  body  and  mind,  were 
alike  baptized  and  alike  partook  of  this  heavenly 
manna.  Otherwise,  they  must  have  perished. 
Baptism  and  the  Eucharist,  therefore,  are  for 
infants,  just  as  much  as  for  adults;  and  the 
Eucharist  was  given  to  infants  in  the  universal 
church  until  the  Council  of  Trent  abolished  the 
practice.    Rather,  it  was  the  common  use  in  the 


INFANT  COMMUNION.  215 

two  Churches,  of  the  East  and  the  West  down  to 
the  twelfth  century,  when  the  Latin  Church  be- 
gan to  discontinue  the  practice,  until  its  official 
abolishment  by  the  Council  of  Trent  in  the  six- 
teenth century.  It  was  the  twenty- first  session 
of  that  Council,  the  fifth  under  Pius  IV,  that 
decreed  an  anathema  against  all  who  held  or 
taught  that  both  species  of  bread  and  Avine  were 
necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  Eucharist,  coup- 
ling with  this  the  anathema  against  the  com- 
munion of  infants.  The  first  canon  of  that  ses- 
sion is  this :  '  If  any  one  shall  say,  from  the  Word 
of  God  that  it  is  necessary  to  salvation  for  each 
or  all  the  faithful  of  Christ  that  they  ought  to 
receive  both  species  of  the  most  holy  sacrament 
of  the  Eucharist,  let  him  be  accursed.'  And  then 
follows  canon  IV,  which  is  this:  '  If  any  one  shall 
say,  that  the  communion  of  the  eucharist  is 
necessary  for  children  before  they  come  to  years 
of  discretion,  let  him  be  accursed.'  "  (Monumen- 
tal Christianity,  p.  376.) 

Dr.  Coleman.  Presbyterian,  says:  "After  the 
general  introduction  of  infant  baptism  the  sacra- 
ment continued  to  be  administered  to  all  who 
had  been  baptized,  whether  infants  or  adults. 
The  reason  alleged  by  Cyprian  and  others  for 
this  practice  was,  that  age  was  no  impediment. 
Augustine  strongly  advocates  the  practice.  The 
custom  continued  for  several  centuries.  It  is 
mentioned  in  the  third  Council  of  Tours,  A.  D. 


216  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

813;  and  even  the  Council  of  Trent,  A.  D.  1545, 
only  decreed  that  it  should  not  be  considered 
essential  to  salvation.  It  is  still  scrupulously  ob- 
served by  the  Greek  Church."  (Ancient  Chris- 
tianity Exemplified,  C.  22,  sec.  8,  p.  310.) 

Schaff,  Presbyterian,  says:  In  North  Africa, 
"in  Cyprian's  time,  we  find  the  custom  of  infant 
communion  (administered  with  wine  alone)  which 
was  justified  from  John  6:53,  and  has  continued 
in  the  Greek  (and  Russian)  church  to  this  day, 
though  irreconcilable  with  the  apostle's  requisi- 
tion of  a  preparatory  examination."  (History 
Christian  Church,  vol.  2,  p.  239.) 

Dr.  Bennett,  Methodist,  says:  "Since  the 
church  from  the  beginning  of  the  third  century 
accounted  infants  as  proper  subjects  of  infant 
baptism,  and  regarded  this  as  the  proper  initia- 
tory rite  into  the  Church  —  ratifying  the  mem- 
bership by  the  holy  unction  and  confirmation — 
she  consistently  admitted  infants  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Of  this  there  is  abundant  proof  as  early 
as  the  third  century."     (Archa3ology,  p.  424.) 

The  fathers  make  the  practice  of  infant  com- 
munion well  nigh  universal.  For  the  East,  where 
it  still  flourishes,  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
so-called  liturgy  of  Clement,  in  which  little  chil- 
dren (jKiidia)  are  ordered  to  receive  immediately 
after  all  who  have  any  special  dedication,  "and 
then  all  the  people  in  order. "  (Constit.  Apostles, 
1.  viii,  c.  13.)    Pseudo-Dyonisius,  possibly  of  the 


INFANT  COMMUNION.  217 

fifth  century,  but  more  probably  of  the  sixth, 
says  that  ' '  children  who  cannot  understand  di- 
vine things  are  yet  made  j^artakers  of  divine 
generation,  and  of  the  divine  communion  of  the 
most  sacred  mysteries."  (De  Eccl.  Hierarch., 
c.  vii,  sec.  11.)  Evagrius,  who  completed  his  his- 
tory in  594,  proves  the  continued  observance  of 
the  rite,  where  he  mentions  an  '  'ancient  custom" 
at  Constantinople,  ' '  when  there  remained  a  good 
quantity  of  the  holy  portions  of  the  undefiled 
body  of  Christ  our  God,  uncorrupted  boys  from 
among  those  who  attended  the  school  of  the 
undermaster  were  sent  to  consume  them. "  (lib. 
iv.  c.  36.)  There  is  a  story  told  by  John  Moschus, 
A.  D.  630,  of  some  children  who  imitated  among 
themselves  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist,  as 
they  had  witnessed  and  taken  part  in  it  them- 
selves."    (Pratum  Spirit.,  c.  196.) 

The  earliest  witness  in  the  Latin  church  is 
Cyprian,  who  writing  in  251,  relates  how  the 
agitation  of  an  infant  to  whom  the  cup  was  of- 
fered, led  to  the  discovery  of  its  having  been 
taken  to  a  heathen  sacrifice.  He  also  represents 
the  children  of  ajiostates  as  able  to  plead  at  the 
day  of  judgment:  "We  have  done  nothing;  nor 
have  we  hastened  of  our  own  accord  to  those 
profane  defilements,  forsaking  the  meat  and  cup 
of  the  Lord."  (De  Lapsis.)  Augustine  says: 
"They  are  infants;  but  they  are  made  partakers 
of  his  Table,  tliat  they  may  have  life  in  them- 
selves."    (Sermon  174,  sec.  7.) 


218  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

The  same  practice  was  common  in  England. 
Hart  says:  "Infant  communion  was  a  very- 
ancient  practice,  and  is  said  to  have  prevailed 
generally  in  the  church  for  six  hundred  years. 
In  the  address  of  our  countryman  ^Ifric  to  the 
priesthood  at  the  delivery  of  the  chrism,  he  says: 
'  Ye  should  give  the  Eucharist  to  children  when 
they  are  baptized,  and  let  them  be  brought  to 
mass  that  they  may  receive  it  all  the  seven  days 
that  they  are  unwashed.'"  (Eccl.  Rec,  p.  188.) 
So  late  as  A.  D.  1073,  infant  communion  was  still 
practiced  in  England.  (Wilkin's  Concilia  MagnsB 
Brit.,  vol.  1,  p.  361.) 

It  is  useless  to  assert  that  this  is  of  no  impor- 
tance. Dr.  Dwight  declares  this  is  a  matter  of 
much  importance,  and  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Pedobaptists  on  this  point  is  erroneous.  Says 
he:  "It  is  objected  further  that  all  bai:)tized  per- 
sons are  by  that  class  of  Christians  to  whom  I 
have  attached  myself,  considered  as  members  of 
the  Christian  church;  yet  those  who  are  baptized 
in  infancy,  are  not  treated  as  possessed  of  that 
character;  particularly,  they  are  not  admitted  to 
the  sacramental  supper;  nor  made  objects  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline.  As  this  object  has  in 
my  own  view,  a  more  serious  import  than  any 
other  which  has  been  alleged,  it  deserves  par- 
ticular consideration.  In  the  first  place,  I  ac- 
knowledge without  hesitation,  that  the  conduct 
of  those  with  whom  I  am  in  immediate  commun- 


INFANT  COMMUNION.  219 

ion,  and  so  far  as  I  know  their  opinions  also, 
with  regard  to  this  subject,  are  in  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  erroneous  and  indefensible." 
(Dwight's  Theology,  Sermon  157,  vol.  4,  p.  317.) 
From  the  above  reasoning  I  reach  two  conclu- 
sions: 1.  Infant  communion  is  as  authoritative 
as  infant  baptism.  2.  And  what  is  more  to  our 
point,  as  long  as  our  Pedobaptist  friends  disre- 
gard the  voice  of  all  antiquity,  and  will  not  com- 
mune with  their  own  children,  they  ought  not  to 
accuse  us  of  being  illiberal.  We,  at  least,  do 
commune  with  our  own  membership. 


220  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

OPEN  COMMUNIONISTS  DO  NOT  ENDORSE  EACH 
OTHER. 

OPEN  communionists  make  a  great  show  of 
Christian  union;  and  yet  they  say  the  most 
bitter  and  harsh  things  against  each  other.  They 
make  a  show  of  endorsing  each  other  when  they 
celebrate  together,  which  is  seldom,  the  Lord's 
Supper;  and  the  rest  of  the  time  they  spend  in 
denouncing  each  other's  doctrines.  This  is  nei- 
ther good  sense  nor  good  policy.  I  shall  indicate 
some  points  of  difference  among  open  commun- 
ionists. 

1.  Some  one  may  say  that  to  have  an  open 
table  is  not  an  endorsement  of  each  other's  doc- 
trines. I  claim  that  where  one  denomination  sits 
down  to  the  Lord's  Supper  with  another  denomi- 
nation it  thereby  says  we  have  no  differences  be- 
tween us.  It  is  an  endorsement  of  the  other's 
position;  and  it  is  invariably  so  understood  by 
the  people.  It  says :  ' '  Your  church  is  as  good 
as  mine ;  and  really  there  is  no  difference  between 
us."  If  that  is  the  truth,  why  have  two  separate 
organizations?  For  men  to  sit  down  to  the  Lord's 
table  proclaiming  that  there  is  no  difference  be- 
tween Christians,  and  then  to  get  up  and  perpet- 


DO  NOT  ENDORSE  EACH  OTHER.      221 

uate  party  strile  and  antagonistic  organizations, 
is  sinful  in  the  sight  of  God.  Every  reason  that 
would  proclaim  a  common  table,  would  demand 
a  union  between  such  parties.  I  have  no  faith  in 
the  so-called  liberal  principles  of  those  who 
preach  unity  at  an  oj^en  table,  and  practice  dis- 
sensions away  from  it. 

That  open  communionists  understand  that 
joint  participation  is  an  endorsement  of  each 
other's  doctrines  is  made  clear  by  Dr.  Dwight. 
He  says :  "In  baptism,  Christians  ap jiear  as  sub- 
jects to  this  ordinance  but  once  in  their  lives; 
and  most  of  them  at  this  appearance,  being  in- 
fants, are  altogether  passive.  At  the  Lord's 
Supper  they  are  always  voluntary,  active  par- 
takers; and  appear  often  in  this  character, 
throughout  their  whole  Christian  life.  They  ap- 
pear at  the  table  of  Christ  in  a  body ;  as  members 
of  him,  the  Head.  They  appear  as  Christian 
friends  and  brethren;  and  are,  all  members  one 
of  another.  They  appear  as  open  professors  of 
his  religion;  as  his  followers;  as  attached  to  his 
cause;  as  interested  in  his  death;  as  expectants 
of  his  commg;  as  voluntary  subjects  of  his  gov- 
ernment. They  exhibit  themselves  as  being 
united  in  one  Faith,  one  Baptism,  one  Worship, 
one  System  of  Doctrines,  and  Duties,  and  one 
scheme  of  Communion,  and  Discipline;  as  having 
one  common  interest,  one  common  pilgrimage, 
and  one  final  home.     All  of  these  things  are  ex- 


222  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

hibited  and  established  by  the  Lord's  Supper." 
(Theology  Explained  and  Defended,  vol.  4,  p. 
364.) 

How  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  the  '  'Christian 
Church,"  and  others  can  endorse  each  other's 
doctrines,  as  they  do  at  the  Lord's  table,  is  be- 
yond my  conception.  But  I  shall  proceed  to 
point  out  some  differences. 

2.  They  differ  in  doctrines.  Take  the  Presby- 
terians and  Methodists  on  the  single  point  of 
predestination.  John  Wesley  called  predestina- 
tion by  every  foul  name.  He  says  in  his  sermon 
on  Free  Grace,  number  54:  "This  doctrine  not 
only  tends  to  destroy  Christian  holiness,  happi- 
ness and  good  works,  but  has  also  a  direct  and 
manifest  tendency  to  overthrow  the  whole  Chris- 
tian revelation.  *  *  *  It  represents  our  blessed 
Lord,  as  a  hypocrite,  a  deceiver,  of  the  people, 
a  man  void  of  sincerity.  *  *  *  It  represents  the 
most  holy  God  as  worse  than  the  devil;  as  more 
false,  more  cruel,  more  unjust.  *  *  *  This  is  the 
blasphemy  for  which  I  abhor  the  doctrine  of 
predestination. " 

John  Calvin  was  scarcely  less  bitter  in  his  de- 
nunciation of  Arminianism.  He  says:  "The  ene- 
mies of  God's  predestination  are  stupid  and 
ignorant  and  the  devil  hath  plunged  out  their 
eyes. "  ' '  Such  men  fight  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
like  mad  beasts,  and  endeavor  to  abolish  the 
holy  Scripture.     There  is  more  honesty  in  the 


DO  NOT  ENDORSE  EACH  OTHER.     223 

Papists  than  in  these  men;  for  the  doctrines  of 
the  Papists  are  a  great  deal  better,  more  holy, 
and  more  agreeable  to  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
than  the  doctrines  of  these  vile  and  wicked  men, 
who  cast  down  God's  holy  election — these  dogs 
that  bark  at  it,  and  swine  that  root  it  up." 

Methodists  and  Presbyterians  may  not  now 
vilify  each  other  in  this  way,  but  they  are  no 
nearer  agreed  on  predestination  than  were  Calvin 
and  Wesley. 

John  "Wesley's  brother,  Charles  Wesley,  wrote 
a  polemical  poem  on  "The  Horrible  Decree,''  in 
which  his  poetic  genius  left  him,  as  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  following  specimens: 

"Oh  horrible  Decree, 

Worthy  of  whence  it  came. 
Forgive  their  hellish  blasphemy, 

Who  charge  it  on  the  Lamb. 
To  limit  thee,  they  dare 

Blaspheme  thee  to  thy  face. 
Deny  their  fellow  worms  a  share 

In  thy  redeeming  grace." 

In  a  poem  on  Predestination,  he  prays: 

"Increase  (if  that  can  be) 

The  perfect  hate  I  feel 
To  Satan's  Horrible  Decree, 

That  genuine  child  of  hell; 
Which  feigns  thee  to  pass  by 

The  most  of  Adam's  race, 
And  leave  them  in  their  blood  to  die. 

Shut  out  from  saving  grace." 


224  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Dr.  Bledsoe,  a  great  Southern  Methodist,  is 
reported  to  have  said :  "  I  would  prefer  to  wor- 
ship a  huge  gorilla  than  the  Presbyterian's  God." 

How  a  staid,  well  regulated  Presbyterian  can 
sit  down  to  the  Methodist  Supper  and  endorse 
such  statements  I  do  not  know. 

But  the  Presbyterians  have  been  scarcely  less 
denunciatory  of  Methodist  doctrines.  John  Cal- 
vin said  as  severe  things  about  Arminianism  as 
John  Wesley  had  about  predestination.  The 
Presbyterians  have  not  yet  forgiven  "Wesley. 
Dr.  Schaff  sums  up  Wesley's  position  thus: 
' '  Wesley  began  to  thunder  against  the  imaginary 
horrors  and  blasphemies  of  Calvinism  which  has 
since  resounded  from  innumerable  Methodist 
pulpits.  He  defines  predestination  to  be  '  an 
eternal,  unchangeable,  irresistible  decree  of  God 
by  virtue  of  which  one  part  of  mankind  are 
infallibly  saved,  and  the  rest  infallibly  damned; 
it  being  impossible  that  any  of  the  former  should 
be  damned,  and  that  any  of  the  latter  should  be 
saved ; '  and  then  he  goes  on  to  show  that  this 
doctrine  makes  all  preaching  useless;  that  he 
makes  void  the  ordinances  of  God;  and  it  tends 
directly  to  destroy  holiness,  meekness,  and  love. 
The  comfort  and  happiness  of  religion,  zeal  for 
good  works,  and  the  whole  Christian  religion, 
that  it  turns  God  into  a  hypocrite  and  deceiver; 
that  it  overturns  his  justice,  mercy  and  truth, 
and  represents  him   'as  worse  than  the  devil, 


DO  NOT  ENDORSE  EACH  OTHER.      225 

more  false  and  more  cruel  and  more  unjust.' 
'  This, '  says  he,  '  is  the  blasphemy  clearly  con- 
tained in  the  horrible  decree  of  predestination, 
and  for  this  I  abhor  it  (however  I  love  the  people 
who  assert  it.)'"  (Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  1, 
pp.  895,  896.) 

I  submit  that  people  who  abuse  each  other  in 
this  manner  ought  not  to  talk  of  the  sectarianism 
of  the  Baptists. 

Perhaps  the '  'Christian  Church,  "or '  'Disciples, " 
says  more  about  Christian  union  than  any  other; 
and  yet  the  "Disciples"  fearfully  denounce  those 
who  do  not  agree  with  them.  I  present  one  exam- 
ple out  of  many  that  could  be  chosen.  Rev.  John 
F.  Rowe,  in  an  article  on  ' '  Christian  Unity, "  says : 
' '  The  very  fact  that  the  various  denominations 
glory  in  distinctive  titles — in  the  nomenclature 
of  spiritual  Babylon — convinces  us  of  insincerity 
in  seeking  Christian  union  upon  the  basis  of  the 
Bible.  While  professing  to  be  'spiritually  united, ' 
because  they  cannot  ecclesiastically  harmonize, 
they  live  in  constant  fear  of  each  other,  and  are 
envious  of  each  other's  popularity;  and,  rather 
than  despise  popularity  and  walk  humbly  with 
the  humble  Christ— walk  in  the  pure  light  of 
God's  word— they  willfully  adhere  to  what  they 
know  to  be  disturbing  elements  to  the  peace  of 
the  Church.  In  this  state  of  mind  they  are 
neither  spiritually  nor  ecclesiastically  united. 
Whenever  all  of  these  parties  as  individuals  shall 


226  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

come  to  be  united  in  Christ,  their  spiritual  Head 
(and  some  think  they  see  the  golden  day  ap- 
jDroaching),  all  of  this  ecclesiastical  trumpery 
will  be  relegated  to  the  dark  dominions  of  Baby- 
lon, whence  it  came.  Christian  unity  stands  still 
until  this  turn  is  made.  It  is  the  love  of  power — 
the  love  of  ecclesiastical  distinction — and  the 
pride  of  opinionism,  which  prevents  the  consum- 
mation of  Christian  unity."  (Christian  Review, 
1887,  p.  233.) 

I  have  been  long  persuaded  that  those  who  are 
the  loudest  in  their  abuse  of  Baptists  and  Close 
Communion,  and  are  disposed  to  make  the  most 
capital  out  of  it,  are  insincere  and  make  this  a 
rallying  cry  of  strife.  Sectarianism  and  a  desire 
for  popularity  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole 
open-communion  business.  Whenever  you  hear 
a  man,  or  denomination,  boasting  how  wonder- 
fully liberal  he  or  it  is,  and  that  "one  church  is 
as  good  as  another,"  you  may  know  that  the 
whole  thing  is  false,  and  that  he  is  the  most  bit- 
ter sectarian  in  the  country.  What  we  need  at 
this  time  is  Christian  manliness,  an  open-hearted 
declaration  of  what  we  believe,  an  honest  appeal 
to  the  word  of  God;  then  the  day  of  Christian 
union  is  not  far  away. 

8.  In  church  government.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge 
so  admirably  states  the  case  that  I  gladly  adopt 
his  words.  He  says:  "It  is  clearly  impossible 
that  Romanists  and  Protestants  should  be  united 


DO  NOT  ENDORSE  EACH  OTHER.     227 

in  the  same  ecclesiastical  organization.  It  is  no 
less  impossible  that  anything  more  than  a  federal 
union,  such  as  may  exist  between  independent 
nations,  can  be  formed  between  Prelatists  and 
Presbyterians,  between  Baptists  and  Pedobap- 
tists,  between  Congregationalists  and  any  other 
denomination  recognizing  the  authority  of 
Church  Courts.  The  principles  conscientiously 
adopted  by  these  different  bodies  are  not  only 
different,  but  antagonistic  and  incompatible. 
Those  who  hold  them  can  no  more  form  one 
church  than  despotism  and  democracy  can  be 
united  in  the  constitution  of  the  same  State.  If 
by  divine  right  all  authority  vests  in  the  king,  it 
cannot  vest  in  the  people.  The  advocates  of 
these  opposite  theories  therefore  cannot  unite  in 
one  form  of  government.  It  is  no  less  obvious 
that  if  ecclesiastical  power  vests  in  one  man — 
the  bishop — it  cannot  vest  in  the  presbytery. 
Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians  cannot  there- 
fore unite.  The  latter  deny  the  right  of  the 
bishop  to  the  prerogatives  which  he  claims;  and 
the  former  deny  the  right  of  the  presbytery 
which  it  assumes.  The  same  thing  is  equally 
plain  of  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists. 
The  former  regard  themselves  as  bound  by  the 
decisions  of  sessions  and  presbyteries;  the  latter 
refuse  to  recognize  the  right  of  Church  courts  to 
exercise  discipline  or  government.  So  long, 
therefore,  so  much  difference  exist  among  Chris- 


228  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

tians,  it  is  plain  that  Romanists,  Episcopalians, 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists,  must  form 
separate  and  independent  bodies."  (Church  Pol- 
ity, p.  96.) 

If  Dr.  Hodge  is  right  in  this,  and  he  undoubt- 
edly is,  why  do  Methodists  and  Presbyterians  on 
"sacramental  occasions"  go  through  the  solemn 
mockery  of  saying:  "There  is  no  difference,  one 
church  is  as  good  as  another."  Why  then  not 
unite  in  one  organization?  If  there  "  is  no  differ- 
ence "  in  keeping  up  different  churches,  and  thus 
dividing  the  Christian  world,  they  are  sinning 
before  God.  There  is  a  difference,  great  and 
mighty  barriers  have  been  placed  in  the  way  of 
Christian  union.  The  very  thing  that  would 
keep  them  from  uniting  in  one  organization 
would  logically  keep  them  from  communing  to- 
gether. Quit  preaching  union  that  never  unites; 
and  show  us  something  of  the  beautiful  fruits  of 
real  union. 

Not  only  are  these  denominations  at  war  with 
one  another,  they  are  not  at  peace  among  them- 
selves. The  various  and  sundry  branches  of 
Methodists  ought  to  come  to  some  agreement 
among  themselves,  before  they  preach  too  often 
on  "Baptist  close  communion."  In  a  number  of 
the  States  two  different  Methodist  bodies  are 
striving  to  occupy  the  same  territory.  It  is  no 
uncommon  thing  to  find  in  a  little  village,  scarcely 
able  to  support  one  church,  two  rival  Methodist 


DO  NOT  ENDORSE  EACH  OTHER.     229 

churches;  and  tlie  vindictive  rivalry  is  not  edify- 
ing to  an  outsider.  The  "Northern  and  South- 
ern Methodists''  are  not  in  heavenly  accord. 
The  following  clipping  from  a  well-known  news- 
paper does  not  overstate  the  case : 

"The  Southern  Methodist  church  having, 
through  its  representatives  in  the  Council,  de- 
clined for  the  hundredth  time  to  commit  suicide 
as  a  church,  and  turn  its  effects  over  to  the 
North,  the  Northern  bishops  could  no  longer  re- 
strain the  full  expression  of  their  brotherly  love. 
In  a  recent  consultation  of  war,  not  against  the 
world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil,  but  against  South- 
ern Methodists,  Bishop  Fowler  said:  'They  are 
as  thoroughly  rebel  as  they  ever  were. '  '  That's 
so,'  said  Bishop  Mallalieu,  and  added:  'We have 
gained  the  cause  in  Kentucky,  Missouri  and  Ten- 
nessee, and  driven  the  Southern  Methodists  to 
their  dens;  and  what  we  have  done  there  we  can 
do  in  the  next  belt.'  The  'dens'  in  Louisville  are 
very  handsome  large  buildings,  filled  with  con- 
gregations. 

' '  To  say  the  least  of  it,  the  Methodist  millen- 
nium is  not  yet. " 

There  is  at  this  time,  1892,  in  progress  a  vio- 
lent discussion  betw^een  the  Northern  and  South- 
ern Methodists.  Bishop  Merrill,  claiming  to 
write  in  a  spirit  of  conservatism,  has  written  a 
book  on  the  "Organic  Union  of  American  Meth- 
odism," that  is  little  less  than  a  smoking  volcano. 


230  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

He  says  of  the  Southern  Methodists:  "It  was 
noticeable  that  the  representatives  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  remained  silent 
on  that  occasion  (at  the  Ecumenical  Conference) 
so  far  as  organic  union  was  concerned.  From 
that  silence,  and  from  the  comments  afterward 
made  in  their  papers,  it  is  readily  inferred  that 
those  in  position  to  direct  public  sentiment  in  the 
Southern  Church  are  opposed  to  the  agitation  of 
this  subject.  For  years  past  there  has  been  a 
studied  effort  on  their  part  to  avoid  this  discus- 
sion."   (Organic  Union,  p.  20.) 

And  of  the  tremendous  task  of  uniting  these 
two  Methodist  factions,  he  says:  "To  expect  this 
grand  consummation  to  be  brought  about  with- 
out an  effort,  would  be  visionary  indeed.  Time, 
study,  preparation,  and  sacrifice  will  be  required; 
and  this,  after  the  purpose  has  been  formed  to 
reach  the  end,  as  well  as  in  the  preliminary  steps 
that  lead  to  that  purpose.  He  who  fails  to  ap- 
preciate the  magnitude  of  the  undertaking  is  not 
prepared  for  the  discussion  of  the  subject,  nor  to 
sit  in  judgment  on  the  issue  when  it  is  presented. 
No  thoughtful  person  will  look  upon  it  as  other 
than  an  enterprise  of  proportions  equal  to  any- 
thing heretofore  attempted  in  the  history  of 
religious  denominations."  (Organic  Union,  pp. 
9,  10.)  But  the  Bishop  says  he  is  not  sanguine 
of  this  result  in  his  day. 

Dr.  E.  E.  Hoss,  Editor  of  the  Nashville  Chris- 


DO  NOT  ENDORSE  EACH  OTHER.     231 

tian  Advocate,  ends  a  lengthy  review  of  Bishop 
Merrill's  book  with  a  challenge  for  a  public  writ- 
ten discussion.  Among  other  things,  he  says: 
"There  is  no  mistaking  Bishop  Merrill's  object. 
He  avows  that  it  is  his  desire  to  promote  the 
consolidation  of  the  various  branches  of  Amer- 
ican Methodism  into  one  compact  and  powerful 
organization.  It  is  our  duty  to  tell  him  with  the 
utmost  plainness  of  speech  that  his  book  will 
help  to  delay  the  consummation  of  such  a  result. 
Though  he  sets  out  with  the  manifest  purpose  to 
be  fair  and  just,  he  does  not  go  far  till  he  shows 
that  he  is  largely  under  the  dominion  of  sec- 
tional and  ecclesiastical  prejudice.  His  method 
of  approach  to  our  Church  is  much  as  if  he 
should  say:  'Come,  come  my  good  brethren,  in 
all  of  the  disputes  between  us  you  have  been 
wholly  in  the  wrong.  I  call  upon  you  in  the 
most  fraternal  spirit  to  abandon  your  convic- 
tions, and  to  accept  mine  in  their  place.'  Whether 
this  is  the  proper  temper  in  which  the  healing  of 
an  old  quarrel  should  be  undertaken,  we  shall 
not  pause  to  consider."  (Christian  Advocate, 
February  18th,  1892.) 

The  fraternal  messenger  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  sent  to  the  General  Con- 
ference, at  Omaha,  was  hissed  while  on  the  floor 
of  that  body.  The  New  Orleans  Christian  Advo- 
cate, May  26th,  1892,  says: 

"The  dispatches  state  that  when  our  f rater- 


232  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

nal  messenger  to  the  General  Conference,  at 
Omaha,  Dr.  J.  J.  Tigert,  in  the  course  of  his 
speech  to  that  body,  remarked  that  the  '  South- 
ern whites  were  the  negroes'  best  friends,'  the 
statement  was  greeted  with  hissings!  This  was 
an  unpardonable  offense.  The  M.  E.  Church  had 
as  well  cease  prating  about  fraternity  and  union, 
if  our  representative  to  their  highest  body  is  to 
be  treated  with  such  indignity  and  no  protest 
made  as  publicly  as  the  hissing  was  done! " 

I  have  no  disposition  to  enter  into  a  discussion 
of  this  nature,  but  I  do  wish  to  say,  that  until 
the  Methodists  quit  perpetrating  upon  the  Chris- 
tian world,  such  discussions  as  these,  in  all  good 
conscience  they  ought  to  cease  talking  about 
' '  Baptist  close  communion, "  even  though  it  be  as 
bad  as  the  average  Methodist  pictures  it  to  be. 

The  Presbyterians  are  scarcely  better  off  than 
the  Methodists,  with  this  additional  difficulty 
that  their  discussions  are  on  the  most  vital  ques- 
tions of  doctrine. 

And  the  Episcopalians  come  forward  and  de- 
clare that  the  Presbyterians  are  not  ordained. 
Palmer  says:  "These  questions,  however,  are 
not  essential  in  the  discussion  of  the  Presbyterian 
ordinations;  for  it  is  certain,  that  such  ordina- 
tions having  been  performed  without  any  neces- 
sity, and  in  opposition  to  the  authority  of  the 
bishops  of  Scotland,  were  in  their  origin  illegiti- 
mate and  schismatical:  and  the  Catholic  church  in 


DO  NOT  ENDORSE  EACH  OTHER.     233 

all  ages  has  rejected  such  ordinations,  and  ac- 
counted them  null;  therefore  the  Presbyterian 
establishment  being  founded  in  schism,  and 
destitute  of  an  apostolic  ministry,  constitutes  no 
part  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ."'  (Church 
of  Christ,  vol.  1,  p.  443.) 

We  Baptists  humbly  suggest  that  our  own 
doctrines  are  scriptural  and  rational,  and  that 
our  Methodist  and  Presbyterian  brethren  have 
ample  opportunities  to  invest  their  spare  time  in 
looking  after  their  own  schisms. 

4.  Open  communionists  do  not  agree  among 
themselves  as  to  the  nature  and  design  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  They  will  sit  down  and  eat  of 
the  bread  and  drink  of  the  wine,  and  get  up  and 
wrangle  over  the  significance  of  the  thing  they 
have  done.  One  declares  that  he  ate  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Son  of  God;  and  the  other  de- 
nies that  it  is  more  than  a  remembrance-  of  the 
Son  of  God.  The  mere  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  has  never  been  a  bond  of  union  for  a 
moment  to  a  single  congregation.  The  whole 
thing  of  open  communion  is  farcical,  unscrip- 
tural  and  impolitic. 


234  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

OPEN  COMMUNION  IS  A  WORN  OUT  HERESY  BOR- 
ROWED FROM  THE  BAPTISTS. 

THE  fact  is  that  the  whole  system  of  open 
communion  originated  with  the  Baptists, 
and  has  been  borrowed  from  us  by  others.  Pre- 
vious to  John  Bunyan,  and  some  of  his  followers, 
open  communion  was  not  heard  of  in  the  world. 
Open  communion  was  not  found  in  the  Bible,  but 
borrowed  from  the  Baptists.  It  is  an  old  heresy 
that  we  well  nigh  discarded  long  ago,  because  it 
was  not  Scriptural  nor  practical,  and  in  more 
recent  years  some  people  think  they  have  made 
a  great  discovery. 

Among  the  Baptists  of  England  open  commun- 
ion has  never  had  more  than  a  transient  popu- 
larity. Our  Confessions  of  Faith  have  all,  with 
one  exception,  and  that  one  does  not  mention 
the  subject,  been  in  favor  of  restricted  commun- 
ion. I  quote  these  Confessions,  not  as  authori- 
tative, for  Baptists  recognize  nothing  as  author- 
itative except  the  holy  Scriptures,  but  as  giving 
our  position  and  history  in  regard  to  this  ordi- 
nance. (See  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  Baptist 
Churches  of  England,  London,  1854.) 

From  the  Schleitheim  Confession,  one  of  the 


BORROWED  FROM  THE  BAPTISTS.  235 

oldest  Baptist  documents  known,  1527:  "All  who 
would  break  one  bread  for  a  memorial  of  the  bro- 
ken body  of  Christ,  and  all  who  would  drink  one 
draught  as  a  memorial  of  the  poured  out  blood  of 
Christ,  should  before  hand  be  united  to  one  body 
of  Christ;  that  is,  to  the  church  of  God,  of  which 
the  head  is  Christ,  to-wit,  by  baptism." 

From  the  Confession  of  John  Smyth  and  his 
church,  1610:  "The  holy  Supper,  according  to 
the  institution  of  Christ,  is  to  be  administered  to 
the  baptized;  as  the  Lord  Jesus  hath  commanded 
that  whatsoever  he  hath  appointed  should  be 
taught  to  be  observed. " 

From  another  and  longer  form  of  the  same: 
"That  only  the  baptized  are  to  taste  the  elements 
of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

From  the  Confession  of  Seven  London 
Churches,  1544:  "Baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  the 
New  Testament,  given  by  Christ,  to  be  dispensed 
upon  persons  i)rofessing  faith,  or  that  are  made 
disciples;  who,  upon  profession  of  faith,  ought 
to  be  baptized,  and  after  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper." 

From  the  appendix  to  the  above,  prepared  by 
Benjamin  Cox:  "Though  a  believer's  right  to  the 
use  of  the  Lord's  Supper  do  immediately  flow 
from  Jesus  Christ  apprehended  and  received  by 
faith;  yet  inasmuch  as  all  things  ought  to  be 
done  not  only  decently,  but  also  in  order.  1  Cor. 
14:40;  and  the  Word  holds  forth  this  order,  that 


236  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

disciples  should  be  baptized,  Matt.  28:19;  Acts 
2:38;  and  then  be  taught  to  observe  all  things 
(that  is  to  say,  all  other  things)  that  Christ  com- 
manded the  Apostles,  Matt.  28:20;  and  accord- 
ingly the  Apostles  first  baptized  disciples,  and 
then  admitted  them  to  the  use  of  the  Sux^per, 
Acts  2:4-42;  we  therefore  do  not  admit  any  to 
the  use  of  the  Supper,  nor  communicate  with  any 
in  the  use  of  this  ordinance,  but  disciples  bap- 
tized, lest  we  should  have  fellowship  with  them 
in  their  doing  contrary  to  order. " 

From  the  Somerset  Confession,  1656:  "That it 
is  the  duty  of  every  man  and  woman,  that  have 
repented  from  the  dead  works,  and  have  faith 
toward  God,  to  be  baptized  *  *  *  And  being 
thus  planted  in  the  visible  church  or  body  of 
Christ  *  *  *  do  walk  together  in  communion, 
in  all  the  commandments  of  Jesus.  *  *  *  That 
we  believe  some  of  those  commandments  further 
to  be  as  followeth:  1.  Constancy  in  prayer.  2. 
Breaking  of  bread,"'  etc.  (The  omissions  are 
mainly  passages  of  Scripture  quoted  in  proof  of 
the  statements.) 

From  a  brief  Confession  of  Faith  (London, 
1660):  "That  the  right  and  only  way  of  gather- 
ing churches  (according  to  Christ's  appointment, 
Matt.  28:19,20)  is  first  to  teach  or  j^reach  the 
gospel  (Mark  16:16)  to  the  sons  and  daughters 
of  men;  and  then  to  baptize  (that  is  English,  to 
dip)  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 


BORROWED  FROM  THE  BAPTISTS.  237 

Spirit,  or  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
such  only  of  them  as  profess  repentance  towards 
God,  and  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
*  *  *  That  is  the  duty  of  such  who  are  consti- 
tuted as  aforesaid,  to  continue  steadfastly  in 
Christ's  and  the  Apostles'  doctrines,  and  assem- 
bling together,  in  fellowship,  in  breaking  of 
bread,  and  prayers  (Acts  2:42)." 

From  an  Orthodox  Creed,  1678:  "And  no  un- 
baptized,  unbelieving,  or  open  profane,  or  wicked 
heretical  persons,  ought  to  be  admitted  to  this 
ordinance  to  profane  it. " 

The  only  BajDtist  Confession  extant  that  fails 
to  speak  explicitly  for  restricted  communion  is 
that  of  1698,  which  is  designedly  silent  for  the 
reason  stated  in  the  appendix  to  that  document: 
' '  We  are  not  insensible,  that  as  to  the  order  of 
God's  house,  and  entire  communion  therein,  there 
are  some  things  wherein  we  (as  w^ell  as  others) 
are  not  at  full  accord  among  ourselves;  as  for 
instance,  the  known  principle  and  state  of  the 
consciences  of  divers  of  us,  that  have  agreed  in 
this  confession  is  such,  that  we  cannot  hold 
church  communion  with  any  other  than  baptized 
believers,  and  churches  constituted  of  such;  yet 
some  others  of  us  have  a  greater  liberty  and  free- 
dom in  our  spirits  that  way;  and,  therefore,  we 
have  purposely  omitted  the  mention  of  things  of 
that  nature,  that  we  might  concur  in  giving  this 
■  evidence  of  our  agreement,  both  among  ourselves 


238  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

and  with  other  good  Christians,  in  those  impor- 
tant articles  of  the  Christian  religion,  mainly- 
insisted  on  by  us;  and  this,  notwithstanding,  we 
all  esteem  it  our  chief  concern,  both  among  our- 
selves and  all  others  that  in  every  place  call 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  both  theirs  and  ours,  and  love  him  in  sin- 
cerity, to  endeavor  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  spirit 
in  the  bond  of  peace;  and  in  order  thereunto,  to 
exercise  all  lowliness  and  meekness,  with  long- 
suffering,  forbearing  one  another  in  love. " 

After  Bunyan's  time  the  controversy  dropped 
until  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
Baptists,  and  so  far  as  I  know  no  one  else,  held 
to  open  communion. 

Abraham  Booth,  in  his  able  Vindication  of  the 
Baptists,  gives  the  exact  history  of  this  thing. 
He  says:  "If  we  appeal  to  the  persuasion  and 
practice  of  Christians  in  all  ages  and  nations,  it 
will  clearly  appear,  that  baptism  was  universally 
considered,  by  the  churches  of  Christ,  as  a  di- 
vinely appointed  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, till  about  the  middle  of  the  last  (eighteenth) 
century,  here  in  England,  when  some  few  of  the 
Baptists  began  to  call  it  in  question,  and  prac- 
tically to  deny  it.  This  our  brethren  now  do  who 
defend  and  practice  free  communion.  *  *  * 
The  ingenious  author  of  the  '  Pilgrim's  Progress ' 
was  one  of  the  first  in  this  Kingdom  who  dared 
to  assert  that  the  want  of  baptism  is  '  no  bar  to 


BORROWED  FROM  THE  BAPTISTS.  239 

communion,'  and  acted  accordingly."  (Booth's 
Apology  for  the  Baptists,  Works,  vol.  2.  pp.  360, 
361,  364.) 

Dr.  Wall  says  the  Baptists  of  his  time  were 
strict  comm unionists.  "I  know,"  says  he,  "that 
the  antipoedobaptists  do  not  admit  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  when  it  is  administered  by  themselves, 
any  but  that  are  baptized  in  their  way.  *  *  * 
One  thing  I  am  persuaded  of  concerning  the  anti- 
psedobaptists;  and  that  is,  that  if  they  were  con- 
vinced that  this  joining  in  the  public  service  of 
the  Church  were  lawful  and  practicable  for 
them,  they  would  join  at  another  rate  than  some 
shifting  people  do  nowadays.  I  take  them  gen- 
erally to  be  cordial,  open,  and  frank  expressers 
of  their  sentiments."  (Wall's  History  Infant 
Baptism,  vol.  1,  pp.  686,  688.) 

That  open  communion  originated  with  the 
Baptists,  and  was  an  unheard-of  thing,  is  amply 
proved  by  Dr.  John  Dick,  the  eminent  Presby- 
terian scholar.  Dr.  Dick  says:  "Our  Lord  has 
shown  for  whose  use  this  ordinance  is  intended, 
by  administering  it  to  his  disciples;  and  a  con- 
clusion may  be  deduced  from  the  passover,  to 
which  the  Israelites  alone  had  access,  and  those 
who  had  joined  themselves  to  them  by  submit- 
ting to  circumcision.  '  This  is  the  ordinance  of 
the  passover:  There  shall  no  stranger  eat  there- 
of. And  when  a  stranger  shall  sojourn  with 
thee,  and  will  keep  the  passover  of  the  Lord,  let 


240  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

all  his  males  be  circumcised,  and  then  let  him 
come  near  and  keep  it,  and  he  shall  be  as  one 
that  is  born  in  the  land:  for  no  uncircumcised 
person  shall  eat  thereof. '  Since  circumcision  was 
an  indispensable  qualification  for  eating  the 
passover,  it  follows  that  baptism,  which  has  suc- 
ceeded to  it,  is  requisite  to  entitle  a  person  to  a 
seat  to  the  table  of  the  Lord.  I  do  not  know  that 
this  was  ever  called  in  question  till  lately,  that  a 
controversy  has  arisen  among  the  English  Bap- 
tists, whether  persons  of  other  Christian  denom- 
inations may  not  be  occasionally  admitted  to  the 
holy  communion  with  them;  and  it  became  neces- 
sary for  those  who  adopted  the  affirmative,  to 
maintain  that  baptism  is  not  a  previous  condi- 
tion. This  assertion  arose  out  of  the  peculiar 
system,  which  denies  the  validity  of  infant  bap- 
tism. But  to  every  man  who  contents  himself 
with  a  plain  view  of  the  subject,  and  has  no  pur- 
pose to  serve  by  subtleties  and  refinements,  it 
will  appear  that  baptism  is  as  much  the  initiating 
ordinance  of  the  Christian,  as  circumcision  was 
of  the  Jewish  dispensation.  An  uncircumcised 
man  was  not  permitted  to  eat  the  passover,  and 
an  unbaptized  man  should  not  be  permitted  to 
partake  of  the  Eucharist."  (Dick's  Theology, 
Lecture  92,  p.  421.) 

It  was  the  eloquent  Robert  Hall  that  made 
open  communion  popular.  In  common  with  all 
other  Baptists  he  rejected  infant  baptism  and 


BORROWED  FROM  THE  BAPTISTS.  241 

affusion.  He  did  not  believe  that  Pedobaptists 
were  baptized  at  all.  He  likewise  held  that  bap- 
tism was  not  a  prerequisite  to  communion. 

Pastor  Charles  H.  Spurgeon  is  often  quoted  in 
this  connection.  His  view  was  somewhat  x)eculiar. 
In  speaking  of  a  visit  to  Mr.  Spurgeon,  in  May, 
1881,  Rev.  H.  L.  Wayland,  D.D.,  editor  of  the 
National  Baptist,  writes  in  that  paper,  July  7th, 
1881,  as  follows:  "Having  heard  varying  state- 
ments as  to  his  views  of  the  communion  question, 
I  thought  I  would  not  lose  the  opportunity  of 
learning  at  first  hands  what  his  position  was. 
He  said:  'We  occui:)y  a  conservatiA^e  position 
among  our  churches  on  that  matter.  I  believe 
that  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  the  priv- 
ilege of  all  Christians.  I  believe  that  any  Chris- 
tian has  a  right  to  be  baptized;  and  any  Christian 
has  a  right  to  baptize,  and  especially  any  minister. 
So  I  believe  any  Christian  has  a  right  to  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  "When  I  am  at  Mentone, 
it  is  a  great  pleasure  to  me  to  break  bread  for 
all  Christians  who  desire  to  unite  in  the  Supper. 
But  I  do  not  believe  that  any  one  should  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  church  without  baptism.  If  any 
person  of  credible  Christian  character  comes  to 
us  and  asks  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
we  give  him  the  privilege  for  three  months,  at 
the  end  of  that  time  we  say  to  him:  'You  have 
had  an  opportunity  to  know  our  views  and  our 


242  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

practice;  if  you  choose  to  unite  with  us,  we  shall 
be  glad  to  receive  you.  If  not,  you  had  better  go 
to  those  with  whom  you  are  in  fuller  sympathy. ' 
And  in  ninety- nine  times  out  of  an  hundred  the 
person  says:  'I  have  seen  your  ways;  and  I  am 
satisfied  to  be  baptized.'  " 

No  man  denounced  infant  baptism,  and  espe- 
cially infant  baptismal  salvation,  with  more  ter- 
rific severity  than  did  Mr.  Spurgeon.  Yet  he 
practically  nullified  this  by  allowing  the  unbap- 
tized  to  commune  with  his  church;  but  he  did  not 
permit  them  to  become  members  until  they  had 
been  immersed  upon  a  profession  of  their  faith. 
At  the  end  of  three  months,  if  such  persons  did 
not  wish  to  be  baptized,  they  were  asked  to  dis- 
continue their  approach  to  the  communion  table. 
Their  non-membership,  said  Mr.  Spurgeon,  ren- 
dered them  ineligible  to  church  membership;  their 
non-baptism,  say  I,  rendered  them  ineligible  to 
the  Lord's  Supper.  I  go  farther  than  this,  and 
say,  that  membership  in  a  Scriptural  church  is  a 
sui)reme  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  while 
baptism  is  a  prerequisite  because  it  is  indispen- 
sable to  church  membership.  All  that  is  needed 
to  refute  the  opinion  of  Robert  Hall  and  Mr. 
Spurgeon  is  the  commission  of  our  Lord :  ' '  Go 
disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them,''  etc.  It  is 
perfectly  evident  that  discipleship  preceded  bap- 
tism,   and  between   discipleshij)    and    baptism, 


BORROWED  FROM  THE  BAPTISTS.  243 

which  is  an  immediate  duty  upon  believing,  there 
is  no  room  for  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

I  am  sure  that  Spurgeon  was  not  antagonistic 
to  Baptist  principles,  as  held  by  us  in  America. 
Dr.  William  E.  Hatcher  writes,  in  the  Religious 
Herald,  March  3rd,  1892:  "But  it  yet  remains  to 
record  his  most  emphatic  and  memorable  utter- 
ance with  reference  to  the  American  Baptists: 
'I  have,'  he  said,  'not  one  word  of  unfriendly 
criticism  to  utter  against  my  Baptist  brethren 
beyond  the  Atlantic.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe 
that  the  Baptists  of  America  are  the  best  Bap- 
tists in  the  world,  and  that  the  best  Baptists  in 
America  are  the  Baptists  of  the  South.  More- 
over, if  I  were  to  come  to  America  to  live,  I 
would  join  a  close  communion  church  and  con- 
form myself  to  its  practices  on  the  Communion 
question. '  As  w®  talked  further,  he  said  that  it 
was  impossible  for  an  outsider  fully  to  under- 
stand the  Baptist  situation  in  England,  and  even 
the  little  that  I  saw  and  heard  convinced  me  that 
American  Baptists  need  to  exercise  charity  and 
forbearance  toward  their  English  brethren. 
They  have  persecutions  and  complications  to 
which  we  are  strangers,  and  if  they  do  not  hold 
all  of  the  distinctive  views  for  which  we  stand, 
we  ought,  at  least,  to  rejoice  for  such  testimony, 
in  favor  of  the  truth,  as  they  are  so  nobly  bear- 
ing." 


244  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

The  Journal  and  Messenger  publishes  a  paper 
on  Spurgeon,  read  before  the  Cleveland  Baptist 
Ministers'  Conference,  by  the  Rev.W.  A.  Perrins, 
late  of  Spurgeon's  College,  which  gives  valuable 
testimony  concerning  the  great  preacher's  views 
on  "close  communion." 

Mr.  Perrins  says:  "Wrong  impressions  have 
gone  abroad  in  regard  to  his  position  in  respect 
to  the  communion  question.  This  has  led  some 
other  denominations  to  claim  him  as  their  own. 
But  he  was  a  Baptist  to  the  backbone  and  at 
heart  a  close  communionist.  My  last  interview 
with  him,  a  few  days  previous  to  my  leaving  for 
this  country,  proves  this.  After  a  very  lengthy 
conversation  on  subjects  relative  to  American 
theology,  he  said:  '  Have  you  made  up  your  mind 
on  the  communion  question?  You  are  going  to  a 
country  where  the  majority  of  Baptists  are  close 
communionists.  Really,  if  I  had  to  begin  my 
ministry  again,  I  should  certainly  commence 
with  a  close-communion  church..  I  am  led  to 
believe  the  American  Baptists  are  right,  but  I 
cannot  alter  the  usages  of  my  church,  which 
have  been  of  so  long  standing. ' " 

Dr.  Edward  Parker,  President  of  the  Man- 
chester Baptist  College,  when  in  America  in 
1889,  said  that  Mr.  Spurgeon  was  hardly  looked 
upon  in  England  as  an  Open  Communionist,  and 
Mr.  Spurgeon  said  of  himself:    "As  compared 


BORROWED  FROM  THE  BAPTISTS.  245 

with  the  bulk  of  English  Baptists,  I  am  a  strict 
communion ist  myself,  as  my  church  fellowship 
is  strictly  of  the  baptized."' 

Here  then  is  the  origin  of  open  communion. 
John  Bunyan  was  its  father,  and  Robert  Hall  its 
most  eloquent  advocate.  Whenever  you  hear 
other  denominations  boasting  of  their  open  com- 
munion, a  quiet  reminder  would  not  be  out  of 
place,  that  open  communion  is  a  Baptist  heresy, 
rejected  by  the  most  of  Baptists,  and  that  it  was 
born  over  sixteen  hundred  years  this  side  of  the 
apostles. 

But  up  to  this  time  open  communion  has  not 
prevailed  among  the  Baptists  of  Great  Britain, 
nor  is  it  likely  to  prevail.  The  open  communion 
wing  is  rapidly  declining,  while  the  restricted 
communionists  are  constantly  gaining  ground. 
Rev.  D.  O.  Davis,  of  Rockdale,  England,  ad- 
dressed the  Southern  Baptist  Convention,  in 
May,  1891.  Among  other  things  he  said  was 
that  the  close  communionists  constituted  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Baptists  of  Great  Britain.  His 
figures  were  as  follows:  "In  Wales  there  are 
ninety  thousand  four  hundred  and  seventy-nine 
Baptists,  almost  to  a  man  close  communionists. 
In  Scotland,  thirty -three  thousand  six  hundred 
and  thirty-seven,  nearly  all  close  communionists, 
so  that  we  have  in  Wales  and  Scotland  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty- five  thousand  one  hundred  and 


246  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

sixteen  close  communionists.  We  have  in  Eng- 
land at  least  sixty  thousand  close  communionists. 
In  the  United  Kingdom  we  have  a  total  of  one 
hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand  one  hundred 
and  sixteen  close  communionists.  There  are  one 
hundred  and  thirty-four  thousand  six  hundred 
and  thirty-nine  open  communionists." 

THE  END. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AND  SUBJECTS, 


PAGE 

Advance,  The. .  .112,  204,  208 
Alexander,    Dr.    Archi- 
bald      25 

Alford,  Henry 36 

American  Christian  lie- 
view 162 

American  Presbyterian  . .    84 

Antioch,  Council  of 39 

Apostolic  Constitutions, 

42,    45 

Apostolic  Times 158,  161 

Armitage,  Thomas 194 

Asbury,  Bishop 129, 

131,  138-140 
Assembly,  General. ....  89 
Augustine  ...  .41,  44,  49,  217 

Baird,  Robert 17 

Bancroft,  George 12 

Bannerman 55 

Baptism 163 

Baptismal  salvation, 173; 
taught  by  The  Disci- 
ples, 181;  Episcopali- 
ans, 173;  Presbyteri- 
ans, 175;  Methodists. .  177 
Baptists,  Bigoted,  8;  Bi- 
ble Societies,  20;  Char- 
ity, 190;  Colleges,  16; 
Confessions  of  Faith, 
234;  misunderstood,  7; 
ignorance  of,  15;  mis- 


PAQE 

sions,  19;  Newspapers, 
17;  Persecuted,  74-80, 
92-101,  114-117;  Reli- 
gious   liberty,    12-15; 

writers 17 

Barnes,  Albert 26 

Basil 42 

Baumgarten 31 

Bede,  Venerable 43 

Beecher,  Edward 165 

Beecher,  Henry  "Ward..  Ill 

Belgic  Confession 62 

Bengel 31 

Bennett,  Dr.  C.  W..U9, 

172,  216 

Bingham 65,  213 

Bledsoe,  A.  T.  .171,  178,  224 

Bloomfield 34 

Blount,  J.  J 31 

Bonaventure 43 

Booth,  Abraham 238 

Bossuet,  Bishop 213 

Bowman,  Bishop 146 

Breckinridge,  Robert. .  101 

Broadus,  J.  A 191 

Bi'ownwell,  Dr 71 

Bullinger 82 

Bullock,  M.  G 148 

Bunsen,  Baron 40 

Bunyan,  John. .  .17,  234, 

238,  245 
Burgess,  O.  A 183 


248 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

Burial  of  the  Dead 72 

Burkitt,  Wm 26,  31,    3-4 

Burnet,  Bishop 76 

Calvin,  John.. 28,  31,  81, 

92,  98,  176,  222,  224 
Campbell,  Alexander. . . 

156-158,  181-183 

Catholics 61 

Carthage,  Council  of .  40,    44 

Cary 67 

Cassia 45 

Catechism,  Longer  .90,    185 

Caulkins,  Dr.  W 113 

Cave ...    66 

Chalmers,  Thomas 15 

Cheetham,  S 46,    64 

Christian  Advocate,  Nash- 
ville  198,  230 

Christian  Advocate,  New 

York 149,  153,  154 

Christian  Advocate,  New 

Orleans 231 

Christian  Antiquities, 

writers  on 58 

Christian  Church  not  in 
agreement  with  Pedo- 

baptists, 225 

Christian  Quarterly 158 

Christian  union 10,  225 

Church  of  England, 
Thirty-nine  Articles 

of 62,    66 

Church  responsibility 

for  discipline 202 

Church,  writers  on 54 

Clarke,  Adam. .  .26,  118,  204 
Clement 41,  216 


PAGE 

Close  Communion,  7,  21; 
Christian  Church,  156- 
162 ;  Congregational 
Church,  109;  Episco- 
pal Church,  64;  Meth- 
odist     Church,     118; 

Presbyterian 81 

Coke,  Dr.  Thomas,..  129-139 
Coleman,  Lyman. 45,  59,  215 

Collier 77,    78 

Conference,  First  Meth- 
odist  127 

Confii-mation 68 

Conyregationalist,  Tlie. . .  110 
Constitutions  and  Canons  72 

Coronation  Oath 93 

Cox,  Ben j 235 

Cox,  Homersham 52 

Creeds,  Confessions,  etc. 

Testimony  of 61-63 

Curtis 192 

Cuyler,  T.  L 18,    83 

Cyprian 216,  217 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem 41 

Dabney,  Dr 57 

Davis,  D.  0 245 

Dexter,  H.  M 109 

Dick,  John 84,  239 

Didache,  The 41 

Diflference  between  chu- 
rch   communion    and 
Christian  communion  190 
Discipline,  Methodist  63, 

118,  141-146,  177 

Dollinger 42,    47 

Drew.  .130,  135,  136,  137,  138 
Dudley,  Bishop  T.  U. . . .    73 


INDEX. 


249 


PAGE  I 

Dutch  Confession 96  { 

Dwight,  Dr.  T. .  109,  218,  221 

Ellicott,  C.  J 35 

Eng-les,  Di- 102 

Episcopal  Church, Terms 

of  Communion  in  the .    64 
Episcopalians  and  Pres- 
byterians not  in  har- 
mony  232 

Errett,  1 159,  183 

Evagrius 217 

Evil  Livers 71 

Fathers,  testimony  of  .39-49 

Featley,  D 78 

Fisher,  George  P. 53,  94, 

109,  115,  116 

Foot 98 

French  Confession 96 

Froude 75 

Fuller,  Thomas 76,  164 

Gardner,  W.  W 192 

Gervinus 13 

Gieseler 51,  214 

Gibbon 52 

Gloag 26,    32 

Godet 35 

Graham,  Robert 158 

Greek  Church 44,    61 

Green 60,    86 

Griffin,  Dr 87 

Gregory  and  Ruter 53 

Guericke 48,    59 

Guthrie 100,  176 

Hall,  John 88 

Hall,  Robert.... 24,  156, 

240,  242 


PAOE 

Harnack,  Dr 173 

Hart 218 

Hase 18 

Hatcher,  Wm 243 

Hawks 80,  100,  131,  138 

Hedding,  Bishop 141 

Heidelberg  Catechism. .    62 
HelviticConfession, first, 

61,  94;  second 62,    94 

Hendrix,  Bishop 147 

Henning 79 

Herndon,  E.  W 160,  184 

Hess 79 

Hibbard,  Dr 29,  118, 

149,  150,  204,  210 

Hippoly  tus 40 

Historical  writers 50 

Hoadley,  Bishop 198 

Hodge,  A.  A 91,  186 

Hodge,  Charles 34, 

36,  177,  186,  195,  225 

Hornbekius 60 

Hoss,  E.  E 230 

Hovey,  A 191 

Hunter,  John 87 

Immersion 164 

Infant  baptism 168 

Inikpendent,  The.  . .  .110, 

111,  205 

Infant  communion 212 

Interior,  The 21,    86 

Irish  Articles  of  Faith.    63 

Jackson 127 

Jacob 55 

Jefferson,  Thomas. .  .97,    98 

Jerome 41 

Jobius 42 


250 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

John's  baptism 24 

Jones,  S.  P 187 

Journal  and  Messenger...  244 

Kaye,  Bishop 55 

Keener,  Bishop 148 

Killin,  Dr 55 

King,  P 47,    65 

Knapp,  George. ..24,  27,  163 
Kurtz 48,    51 

Ladd 209 

Latitudinarianism 8 

Lard,  Moses 159,  183 

Latimer,  Bishop 79 

Lecky 169 

Lerida,  Council  of 45 

Liddell  and  Scott. .  .166,  202 

Litton 54 

London,  Bishop  of 133 

Lowth,  Bishop,  asked  to 
ordain  a  Methodist. . .  128 

Luther 60 

Lundy 214 

Macaulay 17,  175 

Macknight 34 

Madison,  President 99 

Malice 71 

Manton,  Dr 60 

Marckius 57 

Martensen,  Bishop 58 

Martyr,  Justin 39 

Mass,  The 44-46 

Mastricht 56 

Mather,  Increase 115 

Mathews,  R.  T 184 

McDowell 57 

McGarvey,  J.  W 161 


PAGE 

McTyeire,  Bishop  .  .121, 

124,  126,  128 

Mell,  P.  H 193 

Melvill 200 

Membership,  converted.  185 

Merrill,  Bishop 229,  231 

Methodists  not  in  har- 
mony among  them- 
selves, 228;  Close  com- 
munionists,  118-155; 
Without     sacraments 

for  seven  years 140 

Meyer 35,  172,  202 

Milman 52 

Miscellaneous  writers  . .    59 

Montfort,  David 107 

Moschus,  J 217 

Mosheim 50 

Neander 48,    50 

Nevin 176 

Observer,  The 86 

Old  Catholic  Church. . .    61 

Olshausen 34,    35 

Oosterzee 34 

Open  communion  bor- 
rowed from  the  Bap- 
tists,234;  destroys  Gos- 
pel discipline, 202;open 
communionists  do  not 
endorse  each  other. . .  220 
Ordination,  Episcopal . .    66 

Orthodox  Creed 237 

Origin 41,  172 

Palmer,  B.  M 84 

Palmer 232 


INDEX. 


251 


PAGE 

Pan-Presbyterian  Coun- 
cil   101 

Parker,  E 244 

Pendleton,  J.  M 191 

Perrins 241 

Pictetus 5() 

Positive  and  moral  law.  197 

Prayer  Book 69-72,  174 

Prerequisites  to  the 

Lord's  Supper 23,    81 

Predestination 223 

Presbyterians  and  Meth- 
odists not  agreed  in 
doctrine,  103,  222;  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  81,  85, 
88-90, 175, 185; internal 
troubles  of,  229;  origin 

of 92 

Pressensfe 51,  Iti" 

Pseudo-Dyonisius 216 

Quincey 1(5 

Ravennellius 59 

Recorder,  Episcopal 64 

Religious  Herald 243 

Resolutions  of  Southern 

Baptist  Convention.  10,  11 

Riddle 58 

Rives 98 

Roberts,  W.  C 82 

Robertson,  J.  G 52 

Rules     for     translating 

King  James' Bible.  . . .  164 
Rushwood  89 

Salmatius 213 

Saxony,  Confession  of  . .    95 


Schaff,  Philip.  12,  42,  44, 
45,  48,  54,  84,  176,  216,  224 

Schismatics 68 

Schleitheim  Confession.  234 
Scholars,  testimony  of  .50-60 

Scotch  Confession 62 

Scrij^tural  statement.  .21-38 
Seven  London  Churches, 

Confession  of 235 

Skeats 12,  120,  124,  126 

Smith,  J.  Pye 166 

Smyth,  John,  Confession 

of 235 

Sniveley 69 

Somerset,  Confession  of.  236 

Southey,  Robert 123 

Spanheim 51 

Spurgeon,   Charles    H., 
241-245;   not  an  open 

communionist 241 

Stanley,  A.  P 36 

Stevens,  A 128,  130 

Steir,  Rudolf 60 

Stillingfleet,  Bishop ....    47 

Stow 74 

Summers,  Thomas 188 

Syriac  Version 31,    32 

SystematicTheology  and 
Dogmatics,  writers  on    56 

Tertullian 43,  163 

Thayer,  J.  H 166,  202 

Theophylact 43 

Thompson,  Hugh  Miller    73 

Trent,  Council  of 61 

Turretin 9,27,56,    92 

Tyerman...l21,  122,  123, 
129,  130,  132,  133,  135,  179 


252 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

Valentina,  Council  of  —  45 

Waddington 52 

Wake.. 69 

Wall 49,  65,  76,  175,  239 

Washington,  George  ...    14 

Watson,  Richard 151 

Wavland,  H.  L 241 

Webster 8 

Wesley,  Charles 122, 

125-127,  223 

Wesley,  John 9, 

120-125,  131,  179,  222,  223 
Westminster  Confession  63 
Wheatley 68-70 


PAQE 

White,  Bishop,  Dr.Coke 
appeals  to  him  for  or- 
dination  132 

Whitehead 130,  131 

Wilkinson,  W.  C 195 

Williams 69 

Williams,  Roger 13 

Withrow,  J.  H 19, 

21-23,  114 

Witsius 57 

Woods,  Dr 18 

Wright,  G.  W Ill 

Zanchius 59 


I 


► 


AA 


'i&ter/'-c.,, 


°00239Zflii 


